Ex Parte Hyde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

12660025 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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.
12/660,025 02/18/2010 Roderick A. Hyde 365018USP/0707-032-010-00 8059
136716 7590 03/27/2017
HolzerlPLaw, PC
216 16th Street
Suite 1350
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
BURKE, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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):
docket @ holzerlPlaw. com
docketing @ terrapo wer. com
hiplaw@blackhillsip.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,
CLARENCE T. TEGREENE, JOSHUA C. WALTER,
LOWELL L. WOOD JR., and VICTORIA Y.H. WOOD
Appeal 2015-0001601
Application 12/660,025
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
The Appellants3 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1, 45, 47, and 48. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
1 We note related Appeals 2014-008792 (application 12/660,157), 2015-
000164 (application 12/804,950), and 2015-002431 (application
12/804,894).
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed May 19, 2014), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 25,
2014), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Feb. 18, 2010), and to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 25, 2014) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Dec. 19, 2013).
3 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is TERRAPOWER
LLC. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-000160
Application 12/660,025
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “generally relates to the thermal storage
and subsequent utilization of nuclear reactor generated energy.” Spec. 11.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
diverting a selected portion of energy from a portion of at
least one nuclear reactor system to at least one auxiliary thermal
reservoir; and
responsive to a shutdown event, supplying at least a
portion of the diverted selected portion of energy to at least one
energy conversion system of the nuclear reactor system.
Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by George (US 3,974,029, iss. Aug. 10, 1976). Final Act. 4.
Claims 47 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over George and Shinnar (US 2009/0178409 Al, pub. July 16,
2009). Id. at 5.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part, diverting a portion of
energy to a thermal reservoir and supplying a portion of the diverted energy
in response to a shutdown event. See Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.).
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that George’s boiler
does not meet the claimed limitation of a thermal reservoir. See id. at 17—18
2
Appeal 2015-000160
Application 12/660,025
The Examiner finds that George’s boiler meets the claimed thermal
reservoir (Final Act. 4) in that “[a]s is the case with all boilers, the George
boiler stores heat until it is needed to drive the steam turbine and run the
generator. Accordingly, the boiler in George ‘acts to store heat’ with ‘a
liquid material stored in a reservoir containment system.’” Ans. 6 (footnote
omitted). The Examiner notes “[analogously, a residential boiler stores heat
in a water tank until the resident requires hot water in the form of a shower,
laundry, etc.” Id. at n.6.
As the Examiner notes (Ans. 5), we interpret the claim as broadly as is
reasonable in light of the Specification and without reading limitations from
the Specification into the claims. See In re Thrift, 298F.3dl357, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2001); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321—22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The
Specification does not specifically define a “thermal reservoir,” but does
repeatedly provide that energy is diverted to a thermal reservoir, and a
portion of the energy stored in the thermal reservoir is supplied to a
conversion system. Spec. 9—15, 18—25; see also Appeal Br. 18. The
ordinary and customary meaning of “reservoir” is “a place where something
is kept in store: ... an extra supply.” Reservoir, Merriam-Webster.com,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reservoir (last visited Mar. 16,
2017). The Examiner acknowledges that the reservoir stores energy in
finding the boiler acts to store heat. Ans. 6. Thus, we find that the reservoir
to which energy is diverted and from which energy is supplied must function
to store energy.
George discloses a nuclear reactor system with a plurality of auxiliary
cooling loops. George, col. 2,11. 21—39, Abstract, Figure 1 (reproduced
below).
3
Appeal 2015-000160
Application 12/660,025
Figure 1 shows the system with the auxiliary cooling loop.
George further discloses:
Each of these auxiliary cooling loops incorporates a motor driven
circulator 15 producing a flow of gas around the loop, and a
boiler 14 in which the hot gas leaving the reactor core 1 provides
the heat for generating steam for an auxiliary steam-turbine 20
driving an auxiliary generator 16.
Id. at col. 2,11. 41—46.
We find unsupported the Examiner’s finding that George discloses
that the boiler 14 stores heat such as to act as a reservoir. Ans. 6. From
Figure 1 (reproduced above), it appears that boiler 14 is a system that heats
water to generate steam for the turbine (see George, col. 2,11. 44-47). But
George does not specifically disclose that the boiler stores the steam. The
Examiner’s finding that George’s boiler must store steam because all boilers
do (see Ans. 6) is not adequately supported by evidence. We note that,
although many tanks are referred to as “boilers,” a boiler need not be a tank,
4
Appeal 2015-000160
Application 12/660,025
but can simply be “a vessel used for boiling,” for example a tank-less water
heater, or, more relevantly, “the part of a steam generator in which water is
converted into steam.” Boiler, Merriam-Webster.com,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boiler (last visited Mar. 16,
2017). To the extent the Examiner is relying on boilers inherently
functioning to store steam/energy (see Ans. 6), we note that the Examiner
has not provided a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably
support the determination that storing energy necessarily flows from
George’s boiler, as opposed to the boiler possibly or probably storing
steam/energy. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA. 1981) (citing
Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (1939)).
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in the rejection
of independent claim 1 and do not sustain the rejection of independent claim
1 and dependent claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claims 47 and 48 ultimately depend from independent claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 38 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the same inadequately
supported finding as in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, we also do not sustain the
rejections of dependent claims 47 and 48.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 45, 47, and 48 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
5