Ex Parte Hyde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

12930150 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
12/930,150 12/28/2010 Roderick A. Hyde 365064CIP/0707-009-C4 2202
136716 7590
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
10/03/2017 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, MURIEL Y. ISHIKAWA,
JON D. McWHIRTER, ASHOK ODEDRA, JOSHUA C. WALTER,
KEVAN D. WEAVER, and LOWELL L. WOOD JR.1
Appeal 2016-002916
Application 12/930,150
Technology Center 3600
Before KEN B. BARRETT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 79, 81—98, and 105—115. Br. 51. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 TerraPower, LLC is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 5.
Appeal 2016-002916
Application 12/930,150
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 79, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
79. A nuclear fission reactor comprising:
a nuclear fission module;
an electromagnetic flow regulator operatively coupled to
the nuclear fission module, wherein the electromagnetic flow
regulator includes:
a plurality of magnetic conductors arranged in fixed
relative location, the plurality of magnetic conductors defining
therealong a fluid flow path for an electrically conductive reactor
coolant and defining therethrough a reactor coolant inlet path for
the electrically conductive reactor coolant that is substantially
orthogonal to the reactor coolant flow path; and
a field generation winding capable of carrying an
electrical current, the field generation winding being
electromagnetically couplable to the plurality of magnetic
conductors such that at least one magnetic field is generatable by
the field generation winding at the reactor coolant inlet path; and
a control unit operatively coupled to the electromagnetic
flow regulator, the electromagnetic flow regulator being
responsive to the control unit.
REJECTIONS
Claims 79, 83—85, 92, 94, and 96—98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 2010/0067641 Al, pub.
Mar. 18, 2010), Gaubatz (US 4,949,362, iss. Aug. 14, 1990), DeLuca (US
4,765,948, iss. Aug. 23, 1988), and Gotou (US 4,687,418, iss. Aug. 18,
1987).
Claims 81, 82, and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, Gotou, and Fanning (US
5,530,308, iss. June 25, 1996).
2
Appeal 2016-002916
Application 12/930,150
Claims 86 and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, Gotou, and Roman (US
4,412,785, iss. Nov. 1, 1983).
Claims 89—91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, Gotou, Fanning, and
Roman.
Claims 93, 95, and 108—114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yokoyama and Rohde (US 6,327,323 Bl, iss. Dec.
4, 2001).
Claims 105—107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yokoyama and Ahlfeld (US 2009/0080587 Al, pub. Mar.
26, 2009).
Claim 115 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yokoyama and Ehlers (US 4,698,203, iss. Oct. 6, 1987).
ANALYSIS
Claims 79, 83—85, 92, 94, and 96—98
Rejected Over Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, and Gotou
Appellants argue claims 79, 83—85, 92, 94, and 96—98 as a group. Br.
13—26. We select claim 79 as representative, with claims 83—85, 92, 94, and
96—98 standing or falling with claim 79.
The Examiner finds that Yokoyama discloses a nuclear fission reactor
as recited in claim 79, comprising a nuclear fission module (core 2, vessel 9)
and an electromagnetic flow regulator (electromagnetic pump 13) connected
to the module and control unit 48, and Gaubatz teaches magnetic conductors
that define a reactor coolant flow path, but not an inlet path substantially
orthogonal to the reactor coolant flow path. Final Act. 3—4.
3
Appeal 2016-002916
Application 12/930,150
The Examiner finds that DeLuca and Gotou teach a reactor coolant
inlet path for an electrically conductive reactor coolant that is substantially
orthogonal to the reactor coolant flow path. Id. at 4 (citing DeLuca 9:47-49;
Gotou 6:43—48). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to
include the flow regulation taught by DeLuca and Gotou in the system of
Yokoyama as modified by Gaubatz “to cause coolant flow without the use of
mechanical pumps.” Id. at 5.
Appellants raise several arguments. Appellants argue that Gaubatz
does not teach plural magnetic conductors that define a reactor coolant inlet
path as recited in claim 79. Br. 24. Appellants argue that Gaubatz instead
teaches that cylindrical inner wall 96 defines cylindrical passage 98 and the
walls are formed of a non-magnetic material such as stainless steel. Id. As a
result, Appellants argue that Gaubatz teaches that non-magnetic walls 96
define inlet 102 to passageway 98. Id. at 24—25. Appellants also argue that
because Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, and Gotou teach non-magnetic walls
96 that define inlet 102 that is in line with the flow of liquid sodium, these
references do not teach or suggest magnetic conductors defining a fluid flow
path substantially orthogonal to the reactor coolant flow path, as recited in
claim 79. Id. at 25.
As to the first issue, we agree with the Examiner that Gaubatz teaches
magnetic conductors (inductive windings 92a—92i) defining a reactor coolant
flow path for liquid sodium coolant. As Appellants acknowledge, inductive
windings 92a—92i form a flow path (passage 98) that is lined with stainless
steel walls 96. Gaubatz, 6:58—7:8, Tig. 3; see Br. 25. Thus, the inductive
windings define a coolant flow path, as claimed, because they are arranged
in a cylindrical fashion to form passage 98.
4
Appeal 2016-002916
Application 12/930,150
This interpretation is consistent with the claim language including the
term “define,” which can mean “to fix or mark the limits of’ or “to make
distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline.” See definition of “define”
by Merriam-Webster at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defme
(last viewed Sept. 22, 2017). Inductive windings 92a—92i mark the limits of
the coolant passage 98 as shown in Figure 3 of Gaubatz. The fact that the
path defined by windings 92a—92i may be lined with non-magnetic stainless
steel wall 96 is not precluded by claim 79, which recites a nuclear fission
reactor “comprising” “a plurality of magnetic conductors . . . defining
therealong a fluid flow path for an electrically conductive reactor coolant.”
The use of “comprising” signifies that claim 79 is an open-ended claim and
that other elements can be added to the reactor and still fall within the scope
of claim 79. Indeed, Appellants also claim that the reactor further comprises
“a plurality of magnetic nonconductors” (claim 86) and “the reactor coolant
flow path is further defined along the plurality of magnetic nonconductors”
(claim 87), as the Examiner points out. Ans. 17. Therefore, the presence of
stainless steel walls 96 does not undermine the fact that inductive windings
92a—92i define a coolant flow path as recited in claim 79.
This interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which
discloses that fluid flow path 141 is defined by magnetic conductors 510 and
by magnetic nonconductors 530. Spec. 4—6, Fig. IB. Appellants disclose
that magnetic conductors and nonconductors 510, 530 define a path for the
reactor coolant “inboard” of these elements 510, 530. Id. Gaubatz teaches
inductive windings 92a—92i that define a coolant flow path (passage 98) that
is inboard of these windings as shown in Figure 3 of Gaubatz, i.e., passage
98 is within the line or limits defined by windings 92a—92i.
5
Appeal 2016-002916
Application 12/930,150
As to the second issue, we agree with the Examiner that the teachings
of Yokohama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, and Gotou render obvious a coolant inlet
path that is substantially orthogonal to the reactor coolant flow path. Final
Act. 4, 17; Ans. 17—18. Yokohama teaches coolant flow paths that change
directions and flow orthogonally to other flow paths of the coolant as the
coolant circulates through the reactor to transfer heat from reactor core 8 to
steam generator 14. See Yokohama ]Hf 76—83, Figs. 1,3,4. The Examiner
proposes to provide a reactor coolant inlet path through magnetic conductors
that is substantially orthogonal to the reactor coolant flow path based on the
teachings of DeFuca and Gotou. Final Act. 4; Ans. 17—18. We agree with
the Examiner that both references teach this feature.
DeFuca teaches liquid sodium coolant is drawn inductively through
holes 71 at the lower end of pump housing 23 and is directed upwardly by
the pump suction as Appellants recognize. DeFuca, 5:40-46, Fig. 1; Br. 24.
Therefore, the sodium coolant enters linear induction pump 1 through holes
71 in a direction (horizontal) that is substantially orthogonal to the vertical
direction in which the coolant flows through pump 1. DeFuca teaches that
this action of pump inlet shroud and holes 71 mixes the coolant flow that
leaves the heat exchanger and steam generator and thus minimizes thermal
transients in the pump and reactor core. DeFuca 9:46—50, Fig. 11.
Gotou teaches a liquid sodium coolant flow 161 through inlet nozzle
155 in a horizontal direction that is substantially orthogonal to the vertical
coolant flow path 160 through annular fluid passage 142 defined by cylinder
magnets 143 and iron core 144. Gotou, 8:1—55, Fig. 11. Gotou teaches that
this arrangement provides an electromagnetic flow coupler heat exchanger.
Id. at 8:53—55.
6
Appeal 2016-002916
Application 12/930,150
DeLuca and Gotou teach the advantages of orthogonal coolant inlet
flow paths in electromagnetic pumps of nuclear reactors, and these teachings
would have motivated a skilled artisan to include such features in the reactor
of Yokohama for similar advantages. DeLuca, 9:46—50; Gotou, 8:53—55.
The Examiner reasons that these features also would cause the coolant to
flow without mechanical pumps. Final Act. 5. Appellants have not apprised
us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (approving of the Board’s practice as set forth in Ex
Parte Frye of requiring appellants to identify error in a rejection); Ex Parte
Frye, 94 USPQ 2d 1072, 1075—76 (BPA1 2010) (precedential) (a panel
reviews rejections for error based on the issues identified by an appellant).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 79, 83—85, 92, 94, and 96—98.
Claims 81, 82, and 88 Rejected Over
Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, Gotou, and Fanning
Appellants argue that claims 81, 82, and 88 depend from claim 79 and
Fanning does not cure the deficiencies of Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeFuca, and
Gotou as to claim 79. Br. 29-31. Because we sustain the rejection of claim
79, there are no deficiencies for Fanning to cure. Thus, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 81, 82, and 88.
Claims 86 and 87 Rejected Over
Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, Gotou, and Roman
Appellants argue that claims 86 and 87 depend from claim 79 and
Roman does not cure the deficiencies of Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeFuca, and
Gotou as to claim 79. Br. 34—37. Because we sustain the rejection of claim
79, there are no deficiencies for Roman to cure. Thus, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 86 and 87.
7
Appeal 2016-002916
Application 12/930,150
Claims 89—91 Rejected Over
Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, Gotou, Fanning, and Roman
Appellants argue that claims 89-91 depend from claim 79 and Roman
and Fanning do not cure the deficiencies of Yokoyama, Gaubatz, DeLuca,
and Gotou as to claim 79. Br. 38—40. Because we sustain the rejection of
claim 79, there are no deficiencies for Fanning or Roman to cure. Thus, we
also sustain the rejection of claims 89—91.
Claims 93, 95, and 108—114
Rejected Over Yokoyama and Rohde2
Appellants argue that claims 93, 95, and 108—114 depend from claim
79 and Rohde does not cure the deficiencies of Yokoyama as to claim 79.
Br. 42-44. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 79, there are no
deficiencies for Rohde to cure. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claims
93, 95, and 108-114.
Claims 105—107
Rejected over Yokoyama and Ahlfeld3
Appellants argue that claims 105—107 depend from claim 79 and
Ahlfeld does not cure the deficiencies of Yokoyama as to claim 79. Br. 44—
47. Because we sustain the rejection of claim 79, there are no deficiencies
for Ahlfeld to cure. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claims 105—107.
2 Because claims 93, 95, and 108—114 depend from claim 79, we understand
the Examiner’s rejection to be based on Yokohama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, and
Gotou as applied to claim 79, further in view of Rohde, which is relied on to
teach the features of these dependent claims. See Final Act. 11—14.
3 Because claims 105—107 depend from claim 79, we understand the
Examiner’s rejection to be based on Yokohama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, and
Gotou as applied to claim 79, further in view of Ahlfeld, which is relied on
to teach features of these dependent claims. See Final Act. 14—16.
8
Appeal 2016-002916
Application 12/930,150
Claim 115 Rejected Over
Yokoyama and Ehlers4
Appellants argue that claim 115 depends from claim 79 and Ehlers
does not cure the deficiencies of Yokoyama as to claim 79. Br. 47—51.
Because we sustain the rejection of claim 79, there are no deficiencies for
Ehlers to cure. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claim 115.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 79, 81—98, and 105—115.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4 Because claim 115 depends from claim 79, we understand the Examiner’s
rejection to be based on Yokohama, Gaubatz, DeLuca, and Gotou as applied
to claim 79, further in view of Ehlers, which is relied on to teach features of
claim 115. See Final Act. 16—17.
9