Ex Parte Hyde et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 11, 201712590448 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2017) 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. 12/590,448 11/06/2009 Roderick A. Hyde 365044USP/0608-032-001-00 6278 136716 7590 12/18/2017 HolzerlPLaw, PC dba, Holzer Patel Drennan 216 16th Street Suite 1350 Denver, CO 80202 EXAMINER MCGUE, FRANK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2017 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): docketing @ terrapo wer. com hiplaw@blackhillsip.com docket @ hpdlaw .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RODERICK A. HYDE, ROBERT C. PETROSKI, JOSHUA C. WALTER, THOMAS ALLAN WEAVER, CHARLES WHITMER, LOWELL L. WOOD JR., and GEORGE B. ZIMMERMAN Appeal 2016-006843 Application 12/590,448 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 51, 64, and 651 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hyde (US 2008/0123796 Al, May 29, 2008). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Claims 52-63, 66-74, 77-91, 95-119, 122-136, 140-164, 167-181, 185, and 186 are withdrawn from consideration. Non-Final Act. Continuation Sheet. Claims 1—50 are canceled by amendment in the Non-Final Action filed February 12, 2014. Appeal 2016-006843 Application 12/590,448 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for migrating fuel assemblies in a nuclear fission reactor. Spec. 1. Sole independent claim 51, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 51. A method of controlling a nuclear fission traveling wave reactor, the method comprising: for a nuclear fission traveling wave bumfront propagating along first and second dimensions in a nuclear fission reactor core, determining a desired shape of the nuclear fission traveling wave bumfront along the second dimension within a plurality of nuclear fission fuel subassemblies according to a selected set of dimensional constraints; and determining a migration of selected ones of the plurality of nuclear fission fuel subassemblies along the first dimension from respective first locations in the nuclear fission reactor core toward respective second locations in the nuclear fission reactor core in a manner responsive to the desired shape. DISCUSSION Appellants argue claims 51, 64, and 65 together. See generally Appeal Br. We select independent claim 51 as the representative claim, and claims 64 and 65 stand or fall with claim 51. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Hyde discloses each and every limitation of claim 51. See Non-Final Act. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hyde discloses the steps of “determining a desired shape of the nuclear fission traveling wave bumfront along the second dimension (arrows 304) within a plurality of nuclear fission fuel subassemblies according to a selected set of dimensional constraints” (citing Hyde Figs. 3 A—3D; 1102) and determining a migration of selected ones of the plurality of nuclear fission fuel subassemblies along the first dimension (Fig. 10B, 1050, 2 Appeal 2016-006843 Application 12/590,448 location to the left of 1052) along the first dimension (arrow between 1052 and 1054) from respective first locations (1000) toward respective second locations (1050, location to the right of 1054) in a manner responsive to the desired shape. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Hyde at 1127). Alternatively, the Examiner determines “that it would have been obvious to combine the embodiments of Hyde et al. in order to maintain the desired shape of the traveling wave bumfront.” Id. In other words, the Examiner determines that even if these findings pertain to different embodiments of Hyde, it would have been obvious to include the steps from the different embodiments in the same method. Appellants contend that claim 51 is not anticipated by Hyde because Hyde fails to disclose ‘“determining a migration of selected ones of the plurality of nuclear fission fuel subassemblies along the first dimension from respective first locations in the nuclear fission reactor core toward respective second locations in the nuclear fission reactor core in a manner responsive to the desired shape’ as recited in Claim 51.” Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis added). In support of this contention, Appellants explain that “[a]s shown in Fig. 10B and described in the accompanying text at Hyde, para. 0125, Figure 10B illustrates moving material 1050 into reactor 1000, and then upon conversion [into fissile material] may be physically transported out of the reactor 1000 as generally indicated at 1054 [sic].” Reply Br. 5 (citing Hyde 1125). Appellants are correct. In the method illustrated in Figure 10B, Hyde discloses movement from a first location within the reactor to the location which the Examiner identifies as a second location (i.e., “(1050, location to the right of 1054)”) outside the reactor. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Thus, Hyde does not anticipate claim 51. Further, the Examiner does not explain, 3 Appeal 2016-006843 Application 12/590,448 nor is it readily apparent, why it would have been obvious to modify Hyde’s method such that the second location would be located within the reactor. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 51, 64, and 65 as anticipated by, or in the alternative as unpatentable over, Hyde. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 51, 64, and 65 is REVERSED. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation