Ex Parte Kowles et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2016

13326465 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2016)

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.
13/326,465 12/15/2011 JOSEPH E. KOWLES NSD 2010-034 7616
26353 7590 12/15/2016
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
Cranberry Township, PA 16066
EXAMINER
BURKE, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2016 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):
guerral @ wes tinghou se. com
spadacjc @ westinghouse.com
coldrerj @ westinghouse. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH E. KOWLES and DAVID A. STORY
Appeal 2015-001445
Application 13/326,465
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joseph E. Kowles and David A. Story (Appellants)1 appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—11
and 16—18.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Westinghouse Electric
Company LLC. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 12—15 are canceled. Id.
Appeal 2015-001445
Application 13/326,465
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed invention “relates in general to nuclear reactor
control systems, and, in particular to a position indication system for
identifying the movement and position of nuclear control rods within the
core of a nuclear reactor.” Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below from page
8 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is the sole independent claim and
is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A nuclear reactor comprising:
a pressure vessel;
a core of fissile material enclosed within the pressure
vessel, the pressure vessel configured to have a coolant pass
there through, traversing the core;
at least one control rod moveable into and out of the core,
the control rod having a magnetized upper portion and a drive
mechanism that moves the magnetized upper portion over a
travel length as the control rod moves over a full extent of its
travel, the drive mechanism being surrounded by the coolant,
except for energizing feeds which power the drive mechanism;
and
a control rod position indicator supported along at least a
portion of the travel length and surrounded by the coolant, the
control rod position indicator comprising:
a plurality of magnetic switch modules that
respectively close a magnetic circuit when the magnetized
upper portion of the control rod passes by, the magnetic switch
modules being supported at discrete spaced locations along the
travel length; and
a hermetically sealed nonmagnetic tube enclosing
the magnetic switches and shielding the magnetic switches
from the surrounding coolant.
2
Appeal 2015-001445
Application 13/326,465
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Foxworthy US 4,014,741 Mar. 29, 1977
Bongort US 4,056,979 Nov. 8, 1977
Lew US 4,730,491 Mar. 15, 1988
Runde US 5,333,160 July 26, 1994
Beihoff US 2003/0133267 A1 July 17, 2003
Nakamura US 2007/0086556 A1 Apr. 19, 2007
Stambaugh US 2010/0316177 A1 Dec. 16, 2010
Holcomb US 2011/0228640 A1 Sept. 22,2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—6, 9-11, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Runde, Lew, and Stambaugh.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Runde, Lew, Stambaugh, and either Beihoff or
Foxworthy.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Runde, Lew, Stambaugh, and either Holcomb or Bongort.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Runde, Lew, Stambaugh, Nakamura, and Beihoff.
3
Appeal 2015-001445
Application 13/326,465
ANALYSIS
Rejection Based on Runde, Lew, and Stambaugh
The Examiner finds that Runde discloses the nuclear reactor
substantially as claimed in claim 1, including, inter alia, a control rod
position indicator comprising a plurality of magnetic switch modules
enclosed within a non-magnetic tube. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that
Lew discloses a reed switch assembly enclosed by a sealed tubular housing,
and reasons that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to use Lew’s
sealed tubular housing in place of Runde’s non-magnetic tube “for the
purpose of shielding the switching mechanisms from corrosion by the
coolant.” Id. The Examiner finds that Stambaugh teaches coolant flow
through the reactor and immersing the control rod drive mechanism (other
than the energizing feeds) and the control rod position indicator within the
reactor coolant, and also relies on the premise that it would have been
obvious to locate Runde’s control rod position indicator within a sealed tube
to shield the indicator components from reactor coolant in modifying Runde
based on the teachings of Stambaugh. Id. at 4—5.
Appellants traverse, arguing, inter alia, that Runde does not disclose a
control rod position indicator surrounded by reactor coolant. App. Br. 5.
We agree with Appellants. Runde discloses a control rod position indicator
comprising magnets 16 and position transmitter reed switches 18 positioned
externally to the control rod extension shaft housing 19. See Runde 4:22—
63, Figs. 1, 3. Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning for enclosing Runde’s
magnetic switch modules within a hermetically sealed tube (namely, to
provide shielding from reactor coolant) lacks a rational underpinning, as
4
Appeal 2015-001445
Application 13/326,465
Runde’s control rod position indicator is not immersed in reactor coolant
and, thus, there is no need to provide the shielding suggested by the
Examiner. Furthermore, Runde discourages placement of position indicator
components “within the control rod housing of existing, operating nuclear
plants” because such placement would be “prohibited by cost and radiation
considerations.” Id. at 2:20—22.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as of its dependent claims 2—6, 9-11, and 17, as
being unpatentable over Runde, Lew, and Stambaugh.
Rejection Based on Runde, Lew, Stambaugh, and either
Beihoff or Foxworthy
Neither Beihoff nor Foxworthy is relied upon by the Examiner in any
manner that would remedy the deficiency noted above with respect to the
Examiner’s combination of Runde, Lew, and Stambaugh in rendering
obvious the subject matter of claim 1, from which claims 7 and 8 depend.
The rejection of claims 7 and 8, therefore, is not sustained.
Rejection Based on Runde, Lew, Stambaugh, and either Holcomb or Bongort
Neither Holcomb nor Bongort is relied upon by the Examiner in any
manner that would remedy the deficiency noted above with respect to the
Examiner’s combination of Runde, Lew, and Stambaugh in rendering
obvious the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 16 depends. The
rejection of claim 16, therefore, is not sustained.
5
Appeal 2015-001445
Application 13/326,465
Rejection Based on Runde, Lew, Stambaugh, Nakamura, and Beihoff
Neither Nakamura nor Beihoff is relied upon by the Examiner in any
manner that would remedy the deficiency noted above with respect to the
Examiner’s combination of Runde, Lew, and Stambaugh in rendering
obvious the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 18 depends. The
rejection of claim 18, therefore, is not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—11 and 16—18 is reversed.
REVERSED
6