Ex Parte Pomirleanu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2013

11840424 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2013)

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.
11/840,424 08/17/2007 Radu O. Pomirleanu ARF2007-016 1296
26353 7590 06/25/2013
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
Cranberry Township, PA 16066
EXAMINER
MCGUE, FRANK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RADU O. POMIRLEANU, MICHAEL J. HONE,
C. JOSEPH LONG, MICHAEL C. MISVEL, and
DAVID L. STUCKER
____________________

Appeal 2011-000546
Application 11/840,424
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, HYUN J. JUNG, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000546
Application 11/840,424

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Radu O. Pomirleanu et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from a rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Freeman (US 4,820,478; iss. Apr. 11, 1989) and Miller (US 5,064,607;
iss. Nov. 12, 1991). Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
The invention relates to “gray control rod assemblies for nuclear
reactors” and “an improvement to reduce swelling and heating in the neutron
absorbing material in a dashpot region of a fuel assembly guide thimble
when a gray control rod is fully inserted into the nuclear reactor core.”
Spec., para. [0001]. Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A control rod for a pressurized water nuclear
reactor comprising:
an elongated tubular cladding having an
axial dimension with a first end at one extent of the
axial dimension and a second end at another extent
of the axial dimension, the tubular cladding having
an outside diameter sized to fit within a narrowest
dimension of a hollow interior of a control rod
guide thimble within a nuclear fuel assembly, the
control rod guide thimble hollow interior having
an upper end that receives the control rod and a
lower end that has a reduced internal diameter
portion that functions as a dashpot when the
control rod is dropped within the guide thimble,
the reduced diameter portion extending from a
lower portion of the control rod guide thimble
upward for not more than twenty percent of a
height of the hollow interior of the guide thimble;
Appeal 2011-000546
Application 11/840,424

3
a first end plug closing off the first end of
the elongated tubular cladding and designed to be
slidably received within the dashpot;
a first neutron absorbing material occupying
a lower portion of the elongated tubular cladding
in the vicinity of the lower end plug and extending
a distance axially through the elongated tubular
cladding substantially equal to or slightly greater
than a length of the elongated tubular cladding that
would be received within the dashpot when the
control rod was fully inserted into the control rod
guide thimble;
a second neutron absorbing material
occupying a portion of a remainder of the hollow
interior of the elongated tubular member above the
first neutron absorbing material, the second
neutron absorbing material having a substantially
higher reactivity worth than the first neutron
absorbing material; and
a second end plug for closing off the second
end of the elongated tubular cladding.

Independent claim 11 recites a control rod assembly having at least
some control rods with “an elongated tubular cladding.” Br., Clms. App’x.
Independent claim 12 recites a pressurized water nuclear reactor comprising
control rods, at least some of which have “an elongated tubular cladding.”
Id.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Freeman teaches the subject matter of
claim 1 except that Freeman fails to teach that a second neutron absorbing
material has “a substantially higher reactivity worth” than a first neutron
absorbing material. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner relies upon Miller for the
Appeal 2011-000546
Application 11/840,424

4
disclosure of a second neutron absorbing material having a substantially
higher reactivity worth. Ans. 5 (citing Miller, col. 1, ll. 63-68; col. 10, ll.
12-15, 16-19, and Spec., para. [0033]).
The Appellants argue that “the Freeman control rod does not have any
cladding.” Br. 5 (citing Freeman, col. 6, ll. 32-33). The Examiner replies
that elongated inner cylindrical member 34 is interpreted as an elongated
tubular cladding. Ans. 10.
Freeman discloses a control rod 32 that “includes an elongated inner
cylindrical member 34 and an elongated outer cylindrical member 36
surrounding the inner member [34], with each of the members 34, 36 being
composed respectively of alternating poison and nonpoison regions 38, 40
and 42, 44.” Freeman, col. 6, ll. 4-9; see also figs. 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12.
Freeman further states that the poison and nonpoison “regions of the
members [34, 36] can be in the form of poison and nonpoison annular and
solid pellets and thus the members [34, 36] themselves are formed by
connecting the respective pellets together.” Col. 6, ll. 28-31. Column 6,
lines 32-33, states that “[i]t will be observed that there is no cladding
material needed.” Thus, because Freeman discloses a control rod 32 that
includes an inner cylindrical member 34 formed by connecting poison and
nonpoison regions without cladding material, Freeman does not support an
interpretation that the inner cylindrical member 34 is an elongated tubular
cladding. Therefore, because the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 lacks
rational underpinning, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
or claims 2-9 which depend from claim 1.
The Examiner rejects independent claims 11 and 12 on the same basis
as claim 1. Ans. 6. Thus, for the reasons supra, we also cannot sustain the
Appeal 2011-000546
Application 11/840,424

5
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 12. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Freeman and Miller is not sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-12 is reversed.

REVERSED

hh