Ex Parte GRAHAM

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2019

13861004 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/861,004
131036
BWXT
7590
FILING DATE
04/11/2013
05/15/2019
c/o Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP
One Wells Fargo Center
301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas G. GRAHAM
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.
45271/09315 9273
EXAMINER
WASIL, DANIEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2019 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):
ip@nelsonmullins.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS G. GRAHAM 1
Appeal 2018-007 641
Application 13/861,004
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIELS. SONG, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by SONG, Administrative Patent Judge
Opinion Concurring filed by CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
second non-final Office Action ("Off. Act.") rejecting claims 1-22 in the
present application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and
134(a).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Babcock & Wilcox mPower, Inc. BWXT
MPower, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.") 1.
Appeal 2018-007 641
Application 13/861,004
The claimed invention is directed to a reactor control interface.
Abstract. Representative independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A reactor control interface comprising:
a home screen video display unit (VDU) configured to
display:
blocks representing functional components of a
nuclear power plant including at least (i) blocks
representing functional components of a normal heat
sinking path of the nuclear power plant and (ii) blocks
representing functional components of at least one
remedial heat sinking path of the nuclear power plant, and
connecting arrows of a first type that connect blocks
that are providing a current heat sinking path, wherein
directions of the connecting arrows of the first type
represent the direction of heat flow along the current heat
sinking path, and the connecting arrows of a first type are
only displayed when the current heat sinking path is
operational.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App.).
REJECTI0NS 2
The Examiner rejects various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12-16, 18, and 22, as unpatentable over
Beltracchi (US 6,163,740, issued Dec. 19, 2000).
2. Claim 3 as unpatentable over Beltracchi in view of Jaeger (US
2008/0104571 Al, published May 1, 2008).
2 Rejection of claims 1-22 based on judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101
have been withdrawn. Ans. 4.
2
Appeal 2018-007 641
Application 13/861,004
3. Claims 4 and 8-11 as unpatentable over Beltracchi in view of
Scarola et al. (US 5,227,121, issued July 13, 1993).
4. Claim 17 as unpatentable over Beltracchi in view of Hellyar et
al. (US 2003/0117440 Al, published June 26, 2003).
5. Claim 19 as unpatentable over Beltracchi in view of Ebbert et
al. (US 2009/0217084 Al, published Aug. 27, 2009).
6. Claims 20 and 21 as unpatentable over Beltracchi in view of
Lagnelov et al. (US 2010/0141421 Al, published June 10, 2010).
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claim 1 finding that Beltracchi discloses a
reactor control interface as substantially claimed, including "connecting
arrows of a first type that connect blocks that are providing a current heat
sinking path wherein directions of the connecting arrows of the first type
represent the direction of heat flow along the current heat sinking path."
Off. Act. 7 ( citing Beltracchi, col. 7, 11. 45--48; col. 8, 11. 27-38). The
Examiner also finds that Beltracchi discloses "the use of a video display unit
to display a heat path flow chart," but finds that Beltracchi "does not
explicitly teach the limitation of 'connecting arrows of a first type [which]
are only displayed when the current heat sinking path is operational."' Off.
Act. 7. Nonetheless, the Examiner concludes that
one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the entire
raison d'etre of the connecting arrow is to demonstrate that
coolant is flowing. It would have bene [ sic, been] obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to cause the arrow to disappear when
the coolant is not flowing.
3
Appeal 2018-007 641
Application 13/861,004
Off. Act. 7.
The Appellant disagrees, and argues that the arrows 42, 70, 74 of
Beltracchi "do not connect the functional components" 68 and 70, and
instead, "are displayed to the side of lines that indicate possible fluid
communication between the components." App. Br. 11 ( quoting Response
of May 13, 2016, page 8; underlining added in the Appeal Brief). In that
regard, referring to Figure 2 of Beltracchi, the Appellant also argues that the
arrows:
are disposed to the sides of lines that connect the components at
all times, regardless of whether or not there is flow forming a
heat sinking path. This is precisely the kind of prior art display
that may lead an operator to believe flow is present even when it
is not based merely on the existence of the ever-present
connecting lines between the components. As well, flow arrow
( 42) is disposed to the side of component ( 46), the reactor. As
shown, reactor ( 46) is not connected to any other components, by
either arrow ( 42) or lines representing piping.
App. Br. 11.
The Appellant further contrasts the claimed invention arguing that
"the connecting arrows recited in claim 1 only connect functional blocks in
which a heat sinking path exists, meaning flow exists." App. Br. 11.
We agree with the Appellant and find no basis in Beltracchi to support
the Examiner's assertion that Beltracchi discloses "connecting arrows ...
that connect blocks" representing functional components of a nuclear power
plant. The arrows in Figure 2 of Beltracchi do not connect anything at all.
The Examiner responds that "Beltracchi's Figure 1 shows arrows that
connect blocks (these generic 'blocks' do not have to represent functional
components) that are providing a current heat sink path." Ans. 8. However,
like Figure 2, the arrows in Figure 1 of Beltracchi do not connect anything.
4
Appeal 2018-007 641
Application 13/861,004
In addition, the Examiner's position regarding the recited blocks is directly
counter to the claim language, which explicitly states that the blocks
represent "functional components of a nuclear power plant including at least
(i) blocks representing functional components of a normal heat sinking path
of the nuclear power plant and (ii) blocks representing functional
components of at least one remedial heat sinking path of the nuclear power
plant." App. Br. (Claims App.).
The Examiner further responds that claim 1 is broad and only requires
a video display unit (VDU) that is well known and generic, and that
"Beltracchi' s VDU is configured to display the intended information
mentioned in claim 1." Ans. 5-7. In essence, the Examiner interprets
claim 1 as merely reciting a video display unit, and a generic display is
capable of displaying information recited in claim 1. Ans. 7. However, in
considering the invention disclosed in the Specification and the claimed
subject matter being "[a] reactor control interface," we do not subscribe to
the view that recitation of VDU that is "configured to" display the recited
elements of claim 1 is satisfied by a generic display that may be "capable of'
displaying such information. Cf In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379-80
(Fed. Cir. 2014). A person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the
Appellant's Specification, would understand claim 1 to be directed to an
interface for controlling a reactor that is displayed on a video display unit,
and that the claim need not recite all the components of the reactor or
hardware for controlling thereof, including specific hardware/software for
generating the claimed interface.
5
Appeal 2018-007 641
Application 13/861,004
Therefore, in view of the above, we reverse the Examiner's rejection
ofclaim 1 and dependent claims 2, 5-7, 12-16, 18, and 22, which ultimately
depend from independent claim 1.
Rejections 2-6
The Appellant relies on the same arguments for patentability of the
dependent claims that are subject to Rejections 2---6, the rejected claims
ultimately depending from independent claim 1. App. Br. 11-12. As the
Appellant correctly points out (App. Br. 11-12), the Examiner's application
of the various secondary references in these rejections do not address the
above noted deficiencies relative to the rejection of claim 1 (Off. Act 11-
14). Therefore, Rejections 2---6 are also reversed.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
6
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS G. GRAHAM
Appeal 2018-007 641
Application 13/861,004
Technology Center 3600
OPINION CONCURRING
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge
I concur in all respects with the decision reached by the majority. I
write separately to express my opinion concerning aspects of the claimed
invention related to the content of the display.
In the Office Action, the Examiner states that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that the entire raison d' etre for displaying a
connecting arrow is to demonstrate that coolant is flowing. Off. Act. 7. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cause the arrow to
disappear when the coolant is not flowing. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner
states that claim 1 "only" requires an interface comprising a VDU and that it
is "well known" in the art that a video display unit (VDU) is a type of output
(peripheral) device that can be connected to a computer. Ans. 5. Continuing
on, the Examiner finds that the recited VDU equates to a "generic" display
device. Id. at 7. The Examiner further finds that VDU can be an "off-the-
shelf monitor/terminal." Id. The Examiner further finds that Appellant's
Appeal 2018-007 641
Application 13/861,004
disclosure fails to indicate that the "VDU is some specially invented monitor
dedicated to a specific reactor control purpose." Id. The Examiner
concludes, in essence, that because Beltracchi's VDU is capable of
displaying the claimed graphically depicted information, it, therefore, would
have been obvious to cause Beltracchi's VDU to display the claimed reactor
control information. Id. To me, such reasoning demonstrates a fundamental
misunderstanding of the role of scientific ergonomic principles in system
design.
Claim 1 is directed to a reactor control interface. Nuclear power
plants are complex systems and are also systems that pose grave danger if an
error occurs in controlling the reactor. Such power plants are man-machine
systems in that the overall system includes human beings as an integral
component of the control function of the system. In that regard, the human
component of the man-machine systems receives information about the
machine component of the system through various displays. The human
component of the man-machine system then makes decisions and resulting
control inputs to the machine component of the system through various
controls. The displays and controls interposed between the man and the
machine are generally referred to as the "man-machine interface." The
subject matter of claim 1 is primarily directed to the display portion of the
man-machine interface, but the preamble of the claim provides context that
the display is integrated into a larger man-machine interface of a power plant
reactor.
By narrowly focusing on the physical display itself, referring to it as
"generic," the Examiner's rejection focuses on the machine side of the man-
machine interface and essentially dismisses, out-of-hand, the importance of
2
Appeal 2018-007 641
Application 13/861,004
efficiently conveying critical information to a human operator through the
informational content displayed on the display screen. However, it is the
information content displayed on the screen, and not the physical
characteristics of the display device, that will determine whether the power
plant reactor is operated safely.
Practitioners in the field of ergonomics understand that there are
infinite ways to convey information to an operator in a man-machine system.
Information can be conveyed through text, colors, shapes, sounds, and
textures. The size and shape of display elements can facilitate or hinder
information transfer between the machine and the man. The location of
individual display elements in an otherwise complex display of a plurality of
display elements can effect information transfer. The relative juxtaposition
of one display element to another can help or hinder information transfer.
The design of an efficient display requires a designer to take into account
various aspects of human perception. Such design also requires knowledge
of human intuition in regards to how perceived relationships between
display elements facilitate information transfer.
Regardless of whether Appellant's invention may be practiced on a
"generic" display device, the issue before us is whether the informational
content that is displayed represents subject matter that is non-obvious over
the prior art. Beltracchi does not disclose arrows between blocks
representing functional components of a nuclear power plant that are
dynamic in that they only displayed when a path is operational. This
represents an element in claim 1 that is entirely missing in the prior art.
However, it is well settled that rarely, if ever, does skill in the art operate to
supply missing knowledge or prior art to reach an obviousness judgment.
3
Appeal 2018-007 641
Application 13/861,004
Al-Site Corp. v. VS! Int'!, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Skill
in the art does not act as a bridge over gaps in the substantive presentation of
an obviousness case. Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718
(Fed. Cir. 1991). "To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge
of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of record
convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a
hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used
against its teacher." W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In my opinion, the Examiner's off-hand remark in the Office Action
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to
cause an arrow to disappear when coolant is not flowing is insufficient to
supply the missing element of claim 1 and, furthermore, lacks sufficient
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the rejection.
Off. Act. 7.
4