Ex Parte HabermanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201814059714 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/059,714 10/22/2013 ERIC R. HABERMAN NSD 2007-012 CONT 7084 26353 7590 01/25/2018 WF S TTN (TH OT TSF. FT FFTRIF POMP ANY T T C EXAMINER 1000 Westinghouse Drive Suite 141 BURKE, SEAN P Cranberry Township, PA 16066 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2018 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): guerral @ wes tinghou se. com spadacjc @ westinghouse.com coldrerj @ westinghouse.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC R. HABERMAN Appeal 2016-007448 Application 14/059,714 Technology Center 3600 Before: LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 11—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2016-007448 Application 14/059,714 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a steam generator dual head sludge lance. Claim 11, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 11. A method of sludge lancing a tube bundle in a tubular steam generator having a plurality of entry handholes allowing access to a center tube lane, the bundle having a hot leg side and a cold leg side separated by the center tube lane which lane at its midpoint has a central stay rod, which extends from a tube sheet to an elevation above at least one of the plurality of entry handholes, comprising the steps of: 1) opening at least one of the plurality of entry handholes providing access into the center tube lane; 2) introducing a moveable sludge lance having dual lance heads into the center tube lane, with the dual lance heads extending in parallel along a length of the center tube lane and laterally separated from each other a distance greater than the diameter of the central stay rod so the central stay rod can fit into an opening between the dual lance heads; and 3) moving the dual lance heads along the center tube lane while sludge lancing the tube bundle with the moveable sludge lance, so that the dual lance heads traverse a first portion of the central tube lane to extend on either side of the central stay rod wherein the dual heads simultaneously sludge lance a tube lane transverse to the center tube lane on the hot leg side and on the cold leg side and in line with the central stay rod before or upon reaching a limit of movement of the dual lance heads along the central tube lane. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hickman Owen Shiraishi US 4,079,701 Mar. 21, 1978 US 5,813,370 Sept. 29, 1998 US 6,513,462 B1 Feb. 4, 2003 2 Appeal 2016-007448 Application 14/059,714 REJECTIONS Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Hickman and Owen. Claims 12—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Hickman, Owen, and Shiraishi. OPINION Claim 11 The Examiner finds that the combination of Hickman and Owen teach or suggest all of the features of claim 11. Final Act. 4—6. Appellant argues that “the dual nozzles of Hickman et al. do not extend in parallel along a length of the center tube lane and are not laterally spaced from each other to form an opening that the central stay rod can fit within” as required by claim 11. Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner agrees, and though the Final Action is not clear on this point, clarifies in the Answer that the structure of Owen is relied on to teach, inter alia, “dual nozzles [that] extend in parallel with the central tube lane.” Ans. 4. Thus, rather than Hickman alone, it is Hickman modified by the teachings of Owen that suggests claim 1 l’s “dual lance heads extending in parallel along a length of the center tube lane and laterally separated from each other a distance greater than the diameter of the central stay rod so the central stay rod can fit into an opening between the dual lance heads.” One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted) (explaining that obviousness 3 Appeal 2016-007448 Application 14/059,714 must be considered in light of “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”). For this reason, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant also argues that Hickman’s device will “reach[] a limit of movement” before it can “sludge lance a tube lane transverse to the center tube lane on the hot leg side and on the cold leg side and in line with the central stay rod.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant further explains that though “Hickman et al. recognize the importance of advancing the lance past the center of the central tube lane, [they] do not teach how that could be done in steam generators with a center stay rod in the central tube lane.” Id. Thus, Appellant argues, as claim 11 includes a “center tube lane which lane at its midpoint has a central stay rod,” Hickman is “not capable” of “lanc[ing] the tube lane that the central stay rod blocks.” Id. As noted above, the Examiner agrees that Hickman alone does not teach the claimed invention, but rather relies on the combination of Hickman and Owen. See Ans. 5. Though Appellant does argue that “Owen et al. make no mention of how it would deal with a central obstruction in the center tube lane such as a stay rod” (Appeal Br. 5), Appellant does not address “what the combined teachings of the references [Hickman and Owen] would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” {In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). Though focusing solely on what individual references teach or do not teach can identify missing elements and therefore errors in an Examiner’s rejection, Appellant’s arguments here are insufficient to identify errors in the Examiner’s rejection based on the combination of teachings of Hickman and Owen. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection. 4 Appeal 2016-007448 Application 14/059,714 Claims 12—17 Appellant argues that Shiraishi does not overcome the deficiencies of Hickman and Owen previously discussed. Appeal Br. 6. Thus, Appellant argues that claims 12—17 are allowable based on their dependency on claim 11. Id. Concerning claim 16, Appellant argues that none of the references teach “the dual lance heads transverse the center tube lane to extend beyond an end point of the central stay rod” as previously explained with respect to claim 11. Id. As discussed above, we are not informed of error in the rejection of claim 11 and likewise are not informed of error in the rejection of claims 12—17 based on these same arguments. In addition, Appellant separately argues claims 12, 13, and 17 which are addressed below. For claim 14, Appellant relies on the arguments pertaining to claim 13 and thus, claim 14 stands or falls with claim 13. See 37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 12 Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and includes: wherein the step of moving the dual lance heads comprises moving the dual lance heads along a rail that extends between the at least one handhole opening and the central stay rod, including the step of registering a jaw, located and supported at one end of the rail, on the central stay rod to center the rail within the center tube lane. The Examiner finds that Shiraishi teaches use of a rail and a centering jaw. Final Act. 6. The Examiner determines that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a lance [] inserted from only one side of the reactor” “is not stable and would be motivated to combine the dual heads 5 Appeal 2016-007448 Application 14/059,714 of Hickman with the jaw and rail of Shiraishi to provide a stable lance system.” Id. at 7. Appellant argues that Hickman and Owen do not discuss registering a jaw at all, and that the teachings of Shiraishi are limited to registering a jaw on a tube law block and not on a central stay rod. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner responds “arguing that Shiraishi does not teach a stay rod centered in the central tube lane” “is immaterial because the feature is plainly illustrated in Hickman .... Shiraishi was cited expressly to demonstrate that a centering jaw was known and used in the art.” Ans. 6. Similar to claim 11, Appellant argues the references separately while not addressing “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Appellant’s arguments do not identify errors in the Examiner’s rejection based on the combination of teachings of Hickman, Owen, and Shiraishi. Thus, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Claim 13 Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and recites: “including the step of supporting a second rail between a second handhole, substantially opposite the at least one handhole, and the central stay rod and moving a second sludge lance along the second rail between the second handhole and the central stay rod.” The Examiner finds that Shiraishi teaches this claimed method, citing column 7, lines 34-43. Final Act. 7. The Examiner also determines that one of skill in the art “would be motivate[d] to use two sludge lances at once to remove more sludge in less time.” Id. at 7—8. 6 Appeal 2016-007448 Application 14/059,714 Appellant correctly argues that the cited portion of Shiraishi does not teach using two lances. Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner responds by making the determination that using two lances “is plainly a duplication of parts under MPEP 2144.04 VI B.” Ans. 6. Appellant’s Reply Brief does not contest this determination by the Examiner. Further, the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief do not address the Examiner’s determination that one of skill in the art “would be motivate[d] to use two sludge lances at once to remove more sludge in less time.” Final Act. 7—8. As these determinations are not contested or discussed, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Claim 17 Claim 17 depends from claim 11 and includes: “wherein the dual lance heads have axial compliance allowing alignment with any adjacent misdrilled tubes.” The Examiner finds that the “device of Hickman is designed such to allow significant axial motion. (Hickman, col. 5,11. 45— 68.).” Final Act. 8. Appellant argues that the portion of Hickman cited by the Examiner “merely states that the nozzle jets become aligned with the tube row lanes and makes no mention of how it might accommodate a misaligned tube within a lane.” Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner states that the claimed axial compliance is inherent in Hickman, Owen, and Shiraishi because “[gjiven that holes are sometimes misdrilled, the prior art devices must be machined such as to allow for steam generators with misdrilled holes.” Ans. 7. 7 Appeal 2016-007448 Application 14/059,714 Appellant’s Specification states that the “lance barrel assemblies 284 have 1/2” (1.27 mm) of axial compliance allowing precise and independent alignment of [] high pressure jet nozzles 280 within the adjacent tube gaps.” Spec. 142. The Specification further describes the alignment as being accomplished with a thermoplastic knuckle 282 that can be fit within adjacent tubes so that the nozzles can be positioned at adjacent tube gaps. Id. Appellant correctly noted that Hickman does not describe axial compliance. The Examiner offers no evidence to support the position that “that holes are sometimes misdrilled” or that “the prior art devices must be machined such as to allow for steam generators with misdrilled holes.” The only teachings concerning misdrilled tubes appear to be Appellant’s Specification. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s hindsight analysis in the rejection of claim 17. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 11—16 are affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation