Ex Parte Prather et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 201713396396 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2017) Copy Citation 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. CCIOO-140A 7388 EXAMINER GARNER, LILY CRABTREE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/396,396 02/14/2012 CARL PRATHER 7663 7590 11/29/2017 STETINA BRUNDA GARRED & BRUCKER 75 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 250 ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656 11/29/2017 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 CARL PRATHER, DENIS GROB, and CLAES LEMCKE Appeal 2016-004042 Application 13/396,396 Technology Center 3600 Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 7—10, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-004042 Application 13/396,396 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an enhanced nuclear sump strainer system. Claim 1, reproduced below, with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A strainer system for use in a nuclear reactor containment sump to trap debris present in a post loss of coolant accident, the strainer system comprising: at least one strainer module including a plurality of strainer pockets which each define an open inflow end, the inflow ends of the strainer pockets collectively defining a primary strainer surface of the strainer module; and a debris interceptor positioned upstream relative to the strainer module in a manner wherein the debris interceptor effectively covers at least a portion of the primary strainer surface and defines an auxiliary suction plenum between the debris interceptor and the strainer module, the auxiliary suction plenum having an open inlet portion and a pressure activated inlet portion, the debris interceptor being sized and configured to effectively trap and thus prevent at least a portion of the debris present in a post loss of coolant accident from reaching the primary strainer surface of the strainer module, the debris interceptor comprising at least one membrane being transitionable from a closed position wherein the pressure activated inlet portion is substantially covered to prevent fluid flow through the pressure activated inlet portion, to an open position wherein the pressure activated inlet portion is at least partially unobstructed to allow for the flow of fluid through the pressure activated inlet portion. REJECTION Claims 1, 7—10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over CCI Chemical Testing Status of Strainer Testing, a 2007 presentation by Dr. Urs Blumer (“Blumer”), the 2006 GSI-191 presentation ECCS PWR Sump Screen Chemical Head Loss Issue (“GSI- 2 Appeal 2016-004042 Application 13/396,396 191”), and/or the 2004 paper Overview of Site Specific Blockage Solutions at US PWRS by Walker et al. (“Walker”). OPINION The error in the Examiner’s rejection is illustrated by the Examiner’s analysis of Blumer (p. 21): as long as the two modules are positioned in series, with one in front of the other, incoming fluid will contact the two modules in a consecutive manner (unless, for example, it is falling from the sky). If the fluid is incoming from the left-hand side, then the left-hand module will be “upstream” of the right-hand module. If the fluid is incoming from the right-hand side, then the right- hand module will be “upstream” of the left-hand module. Accordingly, each module shown in Blumer is capable of being “upstream” or “downstream” of the other one. Ans. 15—16. As Appellants correctly point out, Blumer’s flow is neither left- to-right nor right-to-left as the Examiner finds. The flow is outside-to- inside, and Blumer’s modules are therefore not arranged in series. App. Br. 14—15; Blumer 17—21. This error of fact renders the Examiner’s rejection unsustainable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection is reversed. REVERSED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation