Ex Parte Friedrich et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 15, 201813121343 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/121,343 07/07/2011 23280 7590 05/17/2018 Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC 589 8th A venue 16th Floor New York, NY 10018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Erhard Friedrich UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11000568.1033 8048 EXAMINER GARNER, LILY CRABTREE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/1712018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ddk@ddkpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERHARD FRIEDRICH, GREGOR MUNSTERJOHANN, and BERND BLOCK Appeal2017-005827 Application 13/121,343 1 Technology Center 3600 Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges. HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Erhard Friedrich et al. ("Appellants") seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14, 16-27, and 31-34. 2 Final Office Action (May 18, 2015) (hereinafter "Final Act."). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellants identify Areva NP as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2 (October 7, 2015) (hereinafter "Appeal Br."). 2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 28-30. Examiner's Answer 13 (December 29, 2016) (hereinafter "Ans."). Claims 28-30 do not stand rejected. Appeal2017-005827 Application 13/121,343 The claimed subject matter relates to a device for connecting a guide tube to a lower nozzle in a nuclear fuel assembly. Clean Substitute Specification i-f 1 (March 28, 2011) (hereinafter "Spec."). During maintenance operations, it may be desirable to remove the lower nozzle to replace one of the fuel rods. Id. i-f 6. An object of the invention is to provide a connecting device that eases maintenance operations. Id. i-f 8. The connecting device includes a locking device that, upon tightening a screw to the nut, axially pushes the screw toward an abutment surface to prevent loosening of the screw. Id. i-f 12. The locking device also retains the screw in the body when the screw is unscrewed from the nut. Id. i-f 15. The Examiner found that the prior art anticipates the claimed connecting device including the locking device for preventing loosening of the tightened screw and for retaining the unscrewed screw in the body. Final Act. 5, 9-11. We disagree with this finding. Accordingly, we REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 14, 33, and 34 are independent. Claim 14, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter on appeal with relevant claim language highlighted in italics. 14. A connecting device for connecting a guide tube to a lower nozzle in a nuclear fuel assembly, the connecting device comprising: a screw; a body having a bore for screwing the screw to a nut through the bore, the screw axially abutting an abutment surface of the body; and a locking device for preventing loosening of the screw, the locking device including an elastic locking member adapted for preventing loosening of the screw by axially pushing the 2 Appeal2017-005827 Application 13/121,343 screw along a screw axis against the abutment surface, the elastic locking member being adapted for retaining the screw in the body after unscrewing the screw. Corrected Appeal Brief (September 24, 2016), Appendix A, 1. REJECTIONS The Final Office Action, as modified by the Examiner's Answer withdrawing the rejection of claims 28-30, includes the following rejections: 1. Claims 14, 16-21, 24, 25, 33, and 34 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Martin et al. (US 3,343,581, issued September 26, 1967) ("Martin"). 2. Claim 22 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin and Frattarola (US 5,382,124, issued January 17, 1995). 3. Claim 23 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin, Frattarola, and Herb et al. (US 6,461,091 B2, issued October 8, 2002) ("Herb"). 4. Claim 26 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin and Marlatt et al. (US 4,427,624, issued January 24, 1984) ("Marlatt"). 5. Claims 27, 31, and 32 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Martin and Joy (US 2,602,191, issued July 8, 1952). ISSUE The Examiner finds, with reference to Figures 1--4 of Martin, that Martin teaches a connecting device including screw 13, body 14 having an abutment surface within groove 35, and a locking device including elastic 3 Appeal2017-005827 Application 13/121,343 locking member 21 for preventing loosening of the screw by axially pushing the screw along a screw axis against the abutment surface. Final Act. 5, 9- 11. In particular, the Examiner finds that locking member 21 snaps into groove 3 5 to permanently lock it into the receptacle against any further axial displacement, thereby preventing loosening of the screw. Id. (citing Martin, col. 3, 11. 56-58); see also Ans. 14-15, 18, 21 ("Because ring 21 is locked into place in groove 35, the entire screw 13 is prevented from loosening and popping back out of the receptacle into which it was forced"). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding independent claims 14, 33, and 34 anticipated by Martin because Martin's ring 21 does not axially push the screw against the axial surface of groove 35. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants contend that ring 21 merely retains the screw captive once it is unscrewed, and that pushing of ring 21 by spring 24 does not prevent loosening of the screw, as required by the claims. Id. at 9. The issue before us is whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that Martin's ring 21, when snapped into groove 35, axially pushes the screw along a screw axis against the abutment surface for preventing loosening of the screw. ANALYSIS In each of independent claims 14, 33, and 34, the locking device performs two recited functions. First, when the screw is screwed to a nut, the locking device prevents loosening of the screw by axially pushing the screw along a screw axis against the abutment surface. Second, after unscrewing the screw from the nut, the locking device retains the screw in the body. Appeal Br., Appendix A. 4 Appeal2017-005827 Application 13/121,343 The claimed functions of the locking device are described in Appellants' Specification with reference to two disclosed embodiments. In a first embodiment, shown in Figures 2--4, locking device 24 comprises annular mounting groove 44, locking ring 46 disposed inside mounting groove 44, and two receiving grooves 48, 50. Spec. i-f 46. Each receiving groove 48, 50 is adapted for allowing elastic expansion of ring 46 when mounting groove 44 faces respective receiving groove 48, 50, such that ring 46 axially locks screw 20 relative to body 22. Id. i-f 56. Receiving groove 48 functions as a locking groove when the screw is threaded into the nut to prevent loosening of the screw. Id. i-f 54, Fig. 2. In the screwed-in position of Figure 2, stop portion 38 of screw 20 abuts abutment surface 32 of body 22 and mounting groove 44 faces locking groove 48. Id. i-f 60. In this position, ring 46 radially expands and exerts an axial upward force on screw 20 due to contact with inclined lower lateral wall 56 of locking groove 48 causing ring 46 to push screw 20 against abutment surface 32 to lock screw 20 and prevent axial movement of screw 20 away from abutment surface 32. Id. i-fi-160, 62-64. Receiving groove 50 functions as a retaining groove when the screw is unscrewed to retain the screw in the body. Id. i-f 54, Fig. 3. In the unscrewed position of Figure 3, stop portion 38 is axially spaced apart from abutment surface 32, and mounting groove 44 is facing retaining groove 50. Id. i-f 61. In this position, ring 46 radially expands and due to the downward orientation of upper lateral wall 58 and the upward orientation of lower lateral wall 59, ring 46 prevents unintentional axial movement of screw 20 relative to body 22 in both directions. Id. i-f 58, 61, 66-67. 5 Appeal2017-005827 Application 13/121,343 In a second embodiment, shown in Figures 5 and 6, locking device 24 comprises helical spring 60 received inside lower section 28 of body so that spring 60 is axially compressed between lower seat 62 on body 22 and upper seat 64 on screw 20. Spec. i-f 80. Spring 60 is preloaded to exert a permanent axial force on screw 20 toward abutment surface 32. Id. i-f 81. Spring 60 thus locks screw 20 in the screwed position. Id. Spring 60 allows axial movement of screw 20 relative to the body 22 on a limited stroke, such that screw 20 is not removable from body 22. Id. i-f 85. The claimed elastic locking member corresponds to either ring 46 of the first embodiment or spring 60 of the second embodiment disclosed in the Specification. As discussed above, in both embodiments, the elastic locking member pushes upward on the screw when the screw is threaded into nut, thereby preventing loosening of the screw. Although Martin's ring 21 and spring 24 are adapted to perform the claimed retaining function, they are not adapted to perform the claimed locking function to prevent loosening of the screw. Martin describes that as the screw is threaded into wall 12, spring 24 compresses axially causing split ring 21 to compress radially as it slides down beveled wall surface 34 and along flattened annular portion 36 of receptacle 14. Martin, col. 3, 11. 45-54. As ring 21 slides past the end of annular portion 36, it snaps into the groove as it expands to a slightly larger diameter and is permanently locked into the receptacle against any further axial displacement. Id. at col. 3, 11. 54-58. Once ring 21 is snapped into groove 35, "upon unthreading the screw member from the container 12, the spring will project the head 17 out of the receptacle 26 but the screw member will not become separated from the receptacle." Id. at col. 3, 11. 68-72. 6 Appeal2017-005827 Application 13/121,343 Thus, as shown in Figure 3 of Martin, when screw 13 is screwed into wall 12, spring 24 pushes ring 21 against the axial surface (i.e., to the right) in groove 35. The shank 15 of screw 13, however, is free to slide within ring 21. Compare Martin, Fig. 1, with Martin, Figs. 2, 3. Thus, ring 21 does not prevent axial movement of screw 13 away from groove 35 and, thus, does not prevent loosening of screw 13. In other words, there is no axial force exerted by either spring 24 or ring 21 that pushes screw 13 against an abutment surface to prevent loosening of the screw. For these reasons, Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner's finding of anticipation of independent claims 14, 33, and 34 is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Likewise, dependent claims 16-21, 24, and 25, which depend from claim 14, also are not anticipated by Martin. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14, 16-21, 24, 25, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Martin. The remaining grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent claims 22, 23, 26, 27, 31, and 32 are based on the same deficient findings as to the anticipation of independent claim 14 by Martin. The teachings of Frattarola, Herb, Marlatt, and Joy, on which the Examiner relies, do not cure the deficiency in Martin. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we likewise do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 22, 23, 26, 27, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 14, 16-2 7, and 31-3 3 is reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation