Ex Parte Rea

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2016

14109461 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/109,461 12/17/2013
15624 7590 04/13/2016
Ryan Alley Intellectual Property Law
P.O. Box 3698
Arlington, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John P. Rea
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5.0030.1 (24NT263165) 7877
EXAMINER
GARNER, LILY CRABTREE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2016 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):
office@alleylegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN P. REA
Appeal2016-002898
Application 14/109,461 1
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
John P. Rea (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)
as being anticipated by Boyd (US 4,759,896, iss. July 26, 1988).2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Global Nuclear
Fuel-Americas LLC. Appeal Br. 1 (filed July 29, 2015).
2 The objection to claim 8 and the rejection of claims 8 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § l 12(b) as being indefinite have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Adv. Act., para. 12 (transmitted June 17, 2015). Because claims 11-20 have
been canceled, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) of claims 11, 13,
and 17-20 as being anticipated by Boyd and the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 12 and 14--16 as being unpatentable over Boyd are moot.
Appeal2016-002898
Application 14/109,461
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to "nuclear fuel-based fluence control."
Spec., para. 18.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the claimed
invention and reads as follows:
1. A core for a nuclear reactor, the core including fissile
material for generating power and having an edge beyond
which no fissile material extends, wherein the core comprises:
a plurality of nuclear fuel assemblies including the fissile
material; and
a fluence controlled nuclear fuel assembly at the edge of
the core, wherein the fluence controlled nuclear fuel assembly
includes the fissile material and a fluence control structure
integrally within the fluence controlled nuclear fuel assembly
only at the edge of the core, \'I/herein the fluence control
structure is fabricated of materials that reduce neutron flux so as
to reduce neutron flux beyond the edge of the core, and wherein
the plurality of nuclear fuel assemblies lack the fluence control
structure and are a same configuration as, and interchangeable
with, the fluence controlled nuclear fuel assembly in the core.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, "a fluence controlled nuclear
fuel assembly at the edge of the core, wherein the fluence controlled nuclear
assembly includes fissile material and a fluence control structure integrally
See Final Act. 5, 11 (transmitted Dec. 29, 2014) and Appellant's
Amendment 5, 6 (filed May 28, 2015).
2
Appeal2016-002898
Application 14/109,461
within the fluence controlled nuclear fuel assembly only at the edge of the
core." Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Boyd teaches "a fluence controlled nuclear
fuel assembly (14', 14", 14'", or 14"") at the edge (25) of the core ... and a
fluence control structure (31) integrally within the fluence controlled nuclear
fuel assembly only at the edge of the core ('at the core periphery')." Final
Act. 5-6 (citing Boyd, col. 1, 11. 16-18; col. 4, 1. 50; Fig. 3) (emphasis
omitted). According to the Examiner, "core peripheral area 25 [of Boyd] is
'the edge of the core' and the 'fluence control structure' is element[] 31."
Adv. Act. 2.
Appellant argues that because a reasonable interpretation of the term
"edge" is "a line or border at which a surface terminates," Boyd fails to
teach "a fluence control structure ... only at the edge of the core," as called
for by claim 1, because "[ fJuel rods 26 in Boyd are positioned beyond rod 31
in assemblies 14." Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 2.
Thus, according to Appellant, Boyd's core area 25 cannot constitute the
claimed "edge" because "this removes any sensible meaning from the term
'edge' and rewrites it to be any 'area' or 'region' that includes fuel and
touches the actual edge." Appeal Br. 7.
During examination, "claims ... are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, [ ] and ... claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Bond, 910 F .2d 831,
833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citation and quotations omitted). This means
that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the
3
Appeal2016-002898
Application 14/109,461
plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F .2d
319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). In this case, an ordinary and customary meaning
of the term "edge" is "the line where an object or area begins or ends."
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1997). Such an
interpretation of the term "edge" is consistent with Appellant's description
because in Appellant's Figure 4, the dark, bolded line is shown as a "fluence
control" line. As such, although we appreciate the Examiner's position that
"the Specification does not provide a definition for edge," nonetheless, we
do not agree with the Examiner's position that "[Appellant's] Drawings do
not reference any edge." Ans. 8. Furthermore, Appellant's Specification
describes using fluence control structures at the "perimeter" of the fuel core
to form a "fluence control" line. Spec., para. 22. For example, Appellant's
Specification describes fluence control structures such as plate curtains 120
arranged on faces 112 of fuel assembly 110, or shielding rods 114 occupying
an entire row and/or column of fuel assembly 110. See Spec., paras. 28, 37,
and 38; Figs. 4, 5. Accordingly, we interpret the phrase "edge of the core,"
when construed in light of Appellant's Figure 4 and the description in the
Specification, as a line, formed by fluence control structures, where the fuel
core ends.
Given the description in Appellant's Specification and Drawings of a
"fluence control" line, the Examiner's interpretation of Boyd's peripheral
core area 25 as the claimed "edge of the core" is unreasonably broad, and is
therefore in error. We thus agree with Appellant that "[t]he Examiner's
interpretation impermissibly rewrites the claim to recite 'a peripheral area'
instead of the distinct 'edge."' Reply Br. 3.
4
Appeal2016-002898
Application 14/109,461
In conclusion, as Boyd's fluence control structure 31 is not located "at
the edge of the core," as called for by claim 1, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-10, as anticipated by Boyd.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 is reversed.
REVERSED
5