Ex Parte Hyde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2017

12590448 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2017)

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and 186 are withdrawn from consideration.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