Ex Parte REYES et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2018

13563527 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/563,527 07 /31/2012
127047 7590 06/07/2018
Schwabe Williamson &Wyatt/SFC/NuScale
1211 SW Fifth A venue
Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jose N. REYES JR.
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.
6985-9044 1005
EXAMINER
BURKE, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2018 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSE N. REYES, JR. and JOHN T. GROOME
Appeal2016-005000
Application 13/563,527 1
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, NEIL T. POWELL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leyse (US 3,276,965; issued Oct. 4, 1966) and
Gans (US 4,081,323; issued Mar. 28, 1978). 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, NuScale Power, LLC, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Appellant filed a Terminal Disclaimer on June 18, 2015, which was
approved by the Examiner on June 18, 2015, to address the double patenting
rejection.
Appeal 2016-005000
Application 13/563,527
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are independent, and claims 2--4, 6-10, 12-14, and
16-20 depend from claim 1 or 11. Claims 1 and 11 are reproduced below:
1. A power module assembly comprising:
a reactor core;
a reactor vessel housing the reactor core, wherein the
reactor core is submerged in primary coolant contained within
the reactor vessel;
a containment vessel which substantially surrounds the
reactor vessel, wherein the containment vessel is internally dry
and forms a containment region which is maintained at a below
atmospheric pressure during normal operation of the power
module assembly; and
a vent configured to controllably release the primary
coolant from the reactor vessel into the containment vessel as
primarily steam during an over-pressurization event, wherein the
containment vessel is configured to retain all of the released
primary coolant within the containment vessel, wherein the
containment vessel is at least partially surrounded by a heat sink,
and wherein a decay heat of the reactor core is transferred to the
heat sink primarily through condensation of the released primary
coolant on an inner surf ace of the containment vessel.
11. A power module assembly comprising:
a reactor core;
a reactor vessel housing the reactor core, wherein the
reactor core is submerged in primary coolant contained within
the reactor vessel;
a containment vessel which substantially surrounds the
reactor vessel;
means for controllably releasing the primary coolant as
steam into the containment vessel in response to a high pressure
condition within the reactor vessel, wherein an inner surface of
the containment vessel is dry prior to releasing the primary
coolant as steam into the containment vessel, and wherein steam
2
Appeal 2016-005000
Application 13/563,527
that condenses on the inner surface of the containment vessel
forms a pool of primary coolant in the containment vessel; and
means for drawing the pool of primary coolant back into
the reactor vessel.
OPINION
As seen above, claims 1 and 11 are each directed to a "power module
assembly" including a "reactor core," a "reactor vessel," and a "containment
vessel." Central to both claims is the "containment vessel" and its
interaction with other features recited in the claims.
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner cites Leyse as teaching each
element of the claims, other than "a containment vessel which is maintained
below atmospheric pressure," but references a "containment vessel"
repeatedly when discussing the teachings of Leyse. Final Act. 3--4. In the
rejection of claim 11, the Examiner specifically states that "Leyse teaches a
containment vessel." Id. at 7. Nevertheless, there is some confusion as to
whether, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner relies on Leyse as
teaching a "containment vessel." See, e.g., App. Br. 11-13. This is clarified
in the Answer, however, when the "Examiner concedes that Leyse does not
teach a containment vessel." Ans. 3. The Examiner cites Gans as teaching a
"containment vessel," explaining that "Gans teaches a containment vessel
which substantially surrounds the reactor vessel ... is internally dry and
forms a containment region which is maintained at a partial vacuum during
normal operation of the power module assembly" and "is designed to
prohibit a release of primary coolant out of the containment vessel." Final
Act. 4 (citing Gans, Abstract); see also id. at 8. The Examiner reasons that
"[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
subatmospheric containment vessel of Gans can be applied to any
3
Appeal 2016-005000
Application 13/563,527
pressurized water reactor" and "[ s ]uch a person would be motivated to
combine the references to provide an additional layer of security in the event
of an overpressurization scenario." Id. at 4; see also id. at 8.
Appellant responds that
if Leyse "was never cited for a containment vessel," as now
suggested by the Examiner (page 3 of the Answer), Appellant
respectfully submits that the Final Office Action failed to allege
with particularity any grounds of rejection for the other recited
features associated with the containment structure of claim 1,
other than being maintained below atmospheric pressure.
Reply. Br. 3. Appellant is correct. If Leyse does not teach a "containment
vessel," as the Examiner now concedes (Ans. 3), it follows that it cannot
teach the interaction between other features of the claims and a "containment
vessel." Claim 1, for example, calls for "a vent configured to controllably
release the primary coolant from the reactor vessel into the containment
vessel," that "the containment vessel is configured to retain all of the
released primary coolant within the containment vessel," and that "the
containment vessel is at least partially surrounded by a heat sink, and
wherein a decay heat of the reactor core is transferred to the heat sink
primarily through condensation of the released primary coolant on an inner
surf ace of the containment vessel." App. Br., Claims App. 1 (emphasis
added). Claim 11 includes similar limitations.
The problem, as Appellant points out, and as noted in the summary of
the Examiner's rejections above, is that the rejections rely on Leyse for
teaching the interaction between the "containment vessel" and other
components, but not for the "containment vessel" itself. See Final Act. 3--4,
7; Ans. 3. The reliance on the teachings from Gans do not cure the
deficiency because, as noted above, Gans is cited only for "teach[ing] a
4
Appeal 2016-005000
Application 13/563,527
containment vessel which substantially surrounds the reactor vessel ... is
internally dry and forms a containment region which is maintained at a
partial vacuum during normal operation of the power module assembly" and
"is designed to prohibit a release of primary coolant out of the containment
vessel." Final Act. 4. Indeed, the Examiner only cites to the general
teachings in the abstract of Gans. See id. at 4, 8. The Examiner offers no
explanation as to how that teaching would be combined with the teachings
of Leyse, or how that combination would meet the limitations related to the
interaction between the "containment vessel" and the other features recited
in the claims.
For at least the reasons discussed above, the Examiner has failed to
establish that claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20 are unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Leyse and Gans.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-14,
and 16-20.
REVERSED
5