Ex Parte Karve et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2013

11340469 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ATUL A. KARVE, GERALD A. POTTS, MARK A. DUBECKY,
ROBERT A. RAND, GERALD LATTER, and BRIAN R. MOORE
____________

Appeal 2010-008682
Application 11/340,4691
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JOHN A. EVANS, and DAVID C.
McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to nuclear
reactor control cell friction metrics. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
failing the written description requirement and as being obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,

1 The Real Party in Interest is Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas LLC.
Appeal 2010-008682
Application 11/340,469

2
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sep.21, 2009), the Answer (mailed Jan. 4,
2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Feb. 18, 2010). We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to methods of determining a cell friction metric for a
control cell of a nuclear reactor. (Abstract).
Claims 1-3 and 6-12 are on appeal, claim 1 is independent. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A method of determining a cell friction metric for a cell
of a nuclear reactor, comprising:
determining, by a core design computer, one or both of a
channel face fast fluence parameter and a channel face
controlled operation parameter for each channel in the control
cell,
calculating, by the core design computer, a total bow
value for each channel face in the control cell at each of a
plurality of channel axial elevations,
calculating, by the core design computer, a total bulge
value at each channel axial elevation for each channel face in
the control cell,
determining, by the core design computer, total
deformation at each channel axial elevation for the control cell
based on the total bow value and the total bulge value,
Appeal 2010-008682
Application 11/340,469

3
calculating, by the core design computer, a statistically
based cell axial friction force value at each of the axial
elevations based on the total deformation, the cell axial friction
force value accounting for an uncertainty in the total bow, the
total bulge, a gap between the channel face and a control blade,
a channel stiffness, and a channel-control blade friction
coefficient, and
selecting, by the core design computer, the maximum of
the calculated cell friction force values as the cell friction
metric for the control cell.
The claims stand rejected as follows:2
A. Claims 1-3 and 6-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as reciting new subject matter lacking adequate written
description support in the Specification as filed. (Ans. 5).
B. Claims 1, 3, and 7-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Sadaoka.3 (Ans. 6-9).
C. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Sadaoka and Fujieda.4 (Ans. 9-10).

2 We do not reach the merits of the following grounds of rejection, as listed
by Appellants (App. Br. 6) because they have been withdrawn by the
Examiner (Ans. 3): Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as set forth on page 3,
section 2, of the Final Office Action dated Mar. 18, 2009 (Fin. Act., 3:2);
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure
that is not enabling. (Fin. Act., 4:3); Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (Fin. Act. 6:5); and Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. (Fin. Act. 6:7).
3 Sadaoka, US 4,988,476, Jan. 29, 1991.
4 Fujieda, US 5,862,194, Jan. 19, 1999.
Appeal 2010-008682
Application 11/340,469

4
D. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Sadaoka, Davis,5 and Dang.6 (Ans. 10-12).
THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
ISSUE
Appellants’ contentions present as dispositive, the issue whether the
velocity with which the control blades is designed to be launched into the
control cell is adequately described.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the step of calculating a statistically based
cell axial friction force as recited in claim 1 based, inter alia, on a gap
between the channel face and a control blade, comprises new matter because
it does not find written description support in the Specification as originally
filed. (Ans. 5).
Appellants contend that the accused limitation is supported by
paragraph 0009 of the published application. (App. Br. 11). Appellants
further contend that the “gap” and its contributions to the “cell axial friction
force value” is well-known in the art as evidenced by the discussion thereof
in the Sadaoka reference. (App. Br. 12).
The Examiner answers that Appellants’ argument does not address the
claim language according to which the gap is accounted for in calculating

5 Davis, US 2006/0193422 A1, filed Feb. 14, 2005.
6 Dang, EP 0 515 054 A1, Nov. 25, 1992.
Appeal 2010-008682
Application 11/340,469

5
the cell axial friction force value. The Examiner finds no support for the gap
being taken into account in the calculation step. (Ans. 12).
Appellants contend that the use of the “gap” to calculate the claimed
“cell friction force values” and the resulting “cell friction metric” is
supported by the disclosure of Figure 8, Step S302 showing calculation of a
nominal interference using total deformation values from steps S301 in
conjunction with the “gap between channel face & blade wing.” Appellants
contend that Step S303a shows calculation of “uncertainties in bow, bulge
gap, stiffness, and friction coefficient,” as described in Specification
paragraph [0040] and a statistically-based upper bound value of the cell
friction force value is determined in Step S306 using the nominal force
uncertainty of method step S305b (using the uncertainties in bow, bulge,
gap, stiffness, and friction coefficient of S303a). (Reply Br. 2). We agree.
Because the Specification discloses a “gap” between a “control blade
wing” and a “channel face” and discloses the relation thereof to the
calculation of cell friction, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and
6-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
CLAIMS 1, 3 AND 7-12
ISSUE
Appellants’ contentions present as dispositive the issues: (1) whether
Sadaoka teaches a statistically-based cell axial friction force value; (2)
whether Sadaoka teaches accounting for an uncertainty in a gap between a
Appeal 2010-008682
Application 11/340,469

6
channel face and a control blade; and (3) whether Sadaoka teaches
accounting for an uncertainty in a channel-control blade friction coefficient.
(App. Br. 14-15).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that each of Sadaoka’s equations calculates a
“nominal value” and not a statistically based value that accounts for an
uncertainty. (App. Br. 14).
The Examiner finds that “there is an inherent statistical component to
Sadaoka’s method” because it is based on an “estimation of data that are not
the instantaneous data of the object under investigation.” (Ans. 13).
Moreover, the Examiner finds that Sadaoka quantifies an “average value of
the gap” and that “[i]nherent to any statement on average is a statistical
inference.” (Id.). Furthermore, the Examiner finds that:
It is essential, therefore, in all measurement work that a
realistic estimate of e (=error) be made. Without such estimate,
the measurement value of X is of no value.
(Ans. 14).7
Appellants once again allege the distinction between a “nominal”
value, as calculated by Sadaoka, and the claimed statistically based values.
(Reply 3).

7 Quoting Hixson et al., Chapter 29, “Measurements,” in the Mechanical
Engineers’Handbook, 2nd ed. (Ed. Myer Kutz), Myer, Kutz and Associates,
Inc., John Wiley & Sons, NY (USA) 1998. (cited in the Final Action mailed
Mar. 18, 2009).

Appeal 2010-008682
Application 11/340,469

7
We are not persuaded that Sadaoka’s calculations do not inherently
rely upon statistical inference. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, and 7-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
CLAIMS 2 AND 6
ANALYSIS
Appellants once again allege their contentions regarding the teachings
of Sadaoka, discussed above in relation to claim 1, and contend that claims 2
and 6 are patentable in view of their dependence from claim 1. (App. Br. 16-
17).
As discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred
in rejecting claims 2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-3, and 6-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

Appeal 2010-008682
Application 11/340,469

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lp