Ex Parte LU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 2, 2014

12102123 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YONG LU and XIAOYAN JIANG
____________________

Appeal 2012-008519
Application 12/102,123
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1–13. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2012-008519
Application 12/102,123

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A fuel assembly for a nuclear reactor comprising:
a parallel array of a plurality of elongated nuclear
fuel rods supported between a lower nozzle and an upper nozzle
and having an axial length along the elongated dimension of the
nuclear fuel rods;
a plurality of spaced support grids arranged in
tandem along the axial length of the fuel rods, between the
upper nozzle and the lower nozzle, at least partially enclosing
an axial portion of the circumference of each fuel rod within a
support cell of the support grids to maintain a lateral spacing
between fuel rods, at least one of the support grids comprising;
an egg-crate base grid having a plurality of
orthogonal intersecting straps that define the support cells at the
intersection of each four adjacent straps that surround the
nuclear fuel rods, a length of each strap between the
intersections of the four adjacent straps forming a wall of the
corresponding support cell, and
a lock-support sleeve configured to fit within at
least one of the support cells and in a first orientation loosely
receive the nuclear fuel rod therethrough and in a second
orientation place a transverse pressure on the fuel rod to restrain
the fuel rod axially, the lock-support sleeve being rotatable
within the at least one of the support cells between the first
orientation and the second orientation.

REJECTIONS
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite.
Claims 1 and 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Rozhkov (US 7,792,236 B2; iss. Sept., 7, 2010).
Claims 1 and 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Jiang (US 2006/0153327 A1; pub. July 13, 2006).
Appeal 2012-008519
Application 12/102,123

3
Claims 2–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rozhkov or Jiang, in view of Kadano (US 5,133,927; iss. July 28, 1992) or
Wakana (JP 01-297594; pub. Nov. 30, 1989).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rozhkov or Jiang in view of Sakurai (US 4,597,937; iss. July 1, 1986).
Claims 10–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rozhkov or Jiang and Manson (US 4,772,447; iss. Sept. 20, 1988).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 rejected as indefinite
The Examiner found that “loosely” in claim 1 is a relative term that
renders claim 1 indefinite because it is not defined in claim 1 or Appellants’
Specification. Ans. 5. The Examiner also found that the description in the
Specification of “loosely” providing a small clearance provides no example
of what width is considered to be a “small” clearance between a fuel rod and
a support sleeve. Id. at 5–6.
Appellants argue that words of degree or relative terms do not render
a claim indefinite if a skilled artisan can understand what is claimed in light
of their Specification, particularly paragraph 32, which states in part:
Basically, the lock-support sleeve 92 is adapted to fit within at
least some of the support cells 94 that support fuel rods and in a
first orientation of the sleeve 92 within the support cell 94 the
sleeve 92 loosely receives the nuclear fuel rod therethrough. In
this orientation the support sleeve has a small clearance with the
fuel rod so that the fuel rod may be loaded therethrough without
scratches, gall balls or any other damage that is normally
encountered when the fuel rods are loaded into conventional
spring grids. After a fuel rod is completely inserted through
each of its grids and finally positioned within the fuel assembly
skeleton the lock-support sleeve 92 may be rotated within the
support cells 94 to a second orientation that pressures at least
Appeal 2012-008519
Application 12/102,123

4
one side wall 98 radially inward to bear a lateral force against
the fuel rod and prevent the fuel rod from moving both axially
and radially.

Br. 5 (citing Spec. 9, ¶ 32).
We find that a skilled artisan would understand what is meant by a
lock support sleeve that is oriented to “loosely” receive a nuclear fuel rod in
light of Appellants’ Specification. This term means that a fuel rod can fit
within and through a lock support sleeve with a small clearance so the sleeve
does not contact the fuel rod. Such a loose fit contrasts with the lock support
sleeve restraining the fuel rod axially, as recited in claim 1 and as disclosed
in Appellants’ Specification, in a second orientation. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 on this ground.
Claims 1 and 6–9 rejected as anticipated by Rozhkov
The Examiner found that Rozhkov teaches a fuel assembly, as recited
in claim 1, with a lock support sleeve (insertable spacing element 6) that is
configured to fit within at least one support cell 3 and in a first orientation to
loosely receive a nuclear fuel rod 5 therethrough and in a second orientation
to place transverse pressure on the fuel rod 5 to restrain the fuel rod axially,
where the lock support sleeve 6 is rotatable within the at least one support
cell between the first and second orientations. Ans. 6–7. The Examiner
found that even if Rozhkov’s support sleeve 6 does not rotate, this functional
step is an intended use that does not define over the prior art because the
prior art structure is capable of performing this intended use. Id. at 20. The
Examiner reasoned that if the prior art sleeves were rotated from the first
orientation to the second orientation, the walls of the support sleeve would
bend inward radially to place a lateral force on a fuel rod placed therein. Id.
Appeal 2012-008519
Application 12/102,123

5
Appellants argue that there is no teaching that the insertable spacing
element has a first orientation that loosely receives the nuclear fuel rod, but
instead only teaches an orientation that restrains the fuel rod with a contact
pressure that is somewhat less than a conventional spring. Br. 7. Appellants
also argue that Rozhkov discloses that the insertable spacing elements
“maintain acceptable forces created while passing the fuel rod through a
spacing grid when they are assembled tightly” and therefore do not have a
first orientation designed to loosely receive the fuel rods. Id.
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Rozhkov discloses a lock support sleeve configured to fit within a cell and,
in a first orientation, loosely receive a nuclear fuel rod therethrough, or
rotate. We construe this limitation as a functional limitation, rather than an
intended use, because it recites how the sleeve functions based on the
configuration of the sleeve. As such, it is entitled to patentable weight.
Appellants disclose a support sleeve 92 that is configured to provide a small
clearance with a fuel rod 66 in a first orientation shown in Figures 6a and 6b
and to press at least one side wall 98 radially inward to bear a lateral force
against the fuel rod and prevent the fuel rod from moving both axially and
radially in a second configuration, as shown in Figures 7a and 7b. Spec. 9,
¶ 32. Rozhkov discloses a sleeve 6 that is configured to maintain acceptable
forces while passing the fuel rod through a spacing grid. The Examiner has
not shown that Rozhkov’s sleeve 6 has structure capable of loosely receiving
a nuclear fuel rod, e.g., with a small clearance, in a first orientation, or
rotating. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 6–9.

Appeal 2012-008519
Application 12/102,123

6
Claims 1 and 6–8 rejected as anticipated by Jiang
The Examiner found that Jiang teaches a fuel assembly, as recited in
claim 1, with a lock support sleeve (tubular member 50) configured to fit in
a support cell 42A, to loosely receive a nuclear fuel rod 28 therethrough in a
first orientation, and to place a transverse pressure on the fuel rod 28 to
restrain the fuel rod axially in a second orientation, where the lock support
sleeve 50 is rotatable within the support cell between the first and second
orientations. Ans. 8–9. The Examiner found that even if Jiang’s support
sleeve 50 does not rotate, this limitation is an intended use that does not
define over the prior art because it must result in a structural difference over
the prior art structure, which is capable of performing this intended use. Id.
at 23. The Examiner reasoned that if the prior art sleeves were rotated from
the first orientation to the second orientation, the walls of the support sleeve
would bend inward radially to place a lateral force on a fuel rod placed
therein. Id.
Appellants argue that the helical structure of Jiang’s support sleeve
would not provide a first orientation even if it was rotated because it has
convolutions that extend axially around the fuel rod and within the fuel rod
support cell. Br. 9. Appellants also argue that Jiang discloses that the
convoluted shape includes a cell contact portion 54 that will contact a cell
wall 43 at the closest point on the cell wall 43. Id. (citing Jiang, ¶ 42).
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Jiang discloses a lock support sleeve that is configured to fit within a cell
and loosely receive a nuclear fuel rod therethrough in a first orientation, or
rotate. We construe this limitation as a functional limitation for the reasons
discussed supra for the previous rejection. Jiang’s sleeve 50 is configured
Appeal 2012-008519
Application 12/102,123

7
with a cell contact portion 54 with a diameter generally equivalent to a cell
width and structured to snugly engage the cell 42 and a fuel rod contact
portion 52 with a lesser diameter generally equivalent to the fuel rod 28
diameter. Jiang, ¶ 40. The Examiner has not established that sleeve 50 is
configured to loosely receive a fuel rod 28, e.g., with a small clearance, or
rotate. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 6–8.
Claims 2–5 rejected as unpatentable over Rozhkov or Jiang, and Kadano or
Wakana
The Examiner relied on Kadano and Wakana to disclose a means for
restraining rotation of a lock support sleeve, as recited in dependent claims
2–5, and not to overcome deficiencies of Rozhkov or Jiang as to claim 1.
Ans. 10–13; Br. 11. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–5.
Claims 2 and 5 rejected as unpatentable over Rozhkov or Jiang and Sakurai
The Examiner relied on Sakurai to disclose a removable stop, as
recited in dependent claims 2 and 5, and not to overcome any deficiencies of
Rozhkov or Jiang as to claim 1. Ans. 13–15; Br. 11. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2 and 5.
Claims 10–13 rejected as unpatentable over Rozhkov or Jiang and Manson
The Examiner relied on Manson to disclose a means for restraining
rotation of a lock support sleeve, as recited in dependent claims 10–13, and
not to overcome any deficiencies of Rozhkov or Jiang as to claim 1. Ans.
15–16; Br. 12. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 10–13.

Appeal 2012-008519
Application 12/102,123

8
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–13.

REVERSED

Ssc