Ex Parte Sejvar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

12715420 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121715,420 03/02/2010
26353 7590 07115/2016
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
Cranberry Township, PA 16066
James Sejvar
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.
NSD2009-015 8717
EXAMINER
BURKE, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2016 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):
guerral@westinghouse.com
spadacjc@westinghouse.com
coldrerj@westinghouse.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES SEJV AR
Appeal2014-002266
Application 12/715,420
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 4, and 6-18. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-002266
Application 12/715,420
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below.
1. A power generating facility having a nuclear island
with a primary side of a nuclear steam supply system enclosed
within a containment, the nuclear island comprising:
a fuel transfer tube extending through the nuclear
containment for transporting nuclear fuel assemblies and
irradiated components from the interior of the nuclear
containment to the exterior thereof;
a solid radiation shield surrounding at least a portion of
the fuel transfer tube;
an expansion gap between the solid radiation shield and
the nuclear containment for accommodating differentials in
thermal expansion of the solid radiation shield and the nuclear
containment; and
a flexible radiation shield extending between and at least
partially within the expansion gap that can withstand changes in
a width of the expansion gap without substantially opening a
hole in the expansion gap that would be unshielded, the flexible
radiation shield comprising:
a hollow flexible outer bladder supported within the
containment, having an interior reservoir for containing a fluid
that attenuates neutron and gamma radiation, housed at least
partially within the expansion gap between the solid radiation
shield and the containment, wherein the hollow flexible outer
bladder with the fluid in the reservoir substantially fills an
opening in the expansion gap and the hollow flexible outer
bladder is configured to expand and contract with
corresponding changes in a width of the expansion gap to
change an overall volume of the interior reservoir; and
an expansion tank in fluid communication with the
interior reservoir and configured to receive the fluid from the
reservoir when the flexible outer bladder is squeezed as the
expansion gap is closed as a result of thermal expansion and
supply additional fluid to the reservoir as the expansion gap
expands as a result of thermal contraction.
2
Appeal2014-002266
Application 12/715,420
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Weissenfluh (US 4,090,087, iss. May 16, 1978). 1
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Weissenfluh and Harp (US 4,892,684, iss. Jan. 9, 1990).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Weissenfluh and Fisher (US 4,123,662, iss. Oct. 31, 1978).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over
Weissenfluh and Thome (US 3,497,421, iss. Feb. 24, 1970).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 15-17 as anticipated by Weissenjluh
The Examiner found that W eissenfluh discloses a radiation shield
with a hollow, flexible outer bladder. Final Act. 5; Ans. 2. The Examiner
found that the radiation shield conforms to irregular surfaces and openings
of different sizes and therefore expands and contracts; as claimed. Ans. 9.
The Examiner further found that W eissenfluh discloses a reservoir "R" and a
pump "P" for filling the shield with fluid for expansion and contraction. Id.
Appellant argues that W eissenfluh does not disclose a flexible bladder
that expands and contracts so a volume of the interior reservoir can change.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also argues that Weissenfluh does not disclose an
expansion tank configured to receive fluid from the interior reservoir when
the outer bladder is squeezed. Id. According to Appellant, Weissenfluh's
"bladder is designed to deform rather than expand or contract." Id.
1 The Examiner additionally rejected claim 12, which depends from claim
11, as being unpatentable over Weissenfluh and Fisher. Final Act. 9-10;
Ans. 6.
3
Appeal2014-002266
Application 12/715,420
The Examiner has not established by a preponderance of evidence that
Weissenfluh discloses a radiation shield with a hollow, flexible outer bladder
that is configured to expand and contract with changes in the expansion gap
so an overall volume of an interior reservoir of the shield changes, with an
expansion tank that is configured to receive fluid from the interior reservoir
when the flexible outer bladder is squeezed or supply additional fluid to the
reservoir as the expansion gap expands, as recited in claim 1. The mere fact
that shield 34 is flexible and conforms to surface irregularities and openings
of different sizes (Weissenfluh, 4:45--49; Ans. 9) does not disclose an outer
bladder configured to expand and contract so that the volume of the interior
reservoir of shield 34 changes with changes in the width of the expansion
gap. The Examiner has not identified any express disclosure that shield 34
expands or contracts to change the volume of the interior reservoir of shield
34. Nor has the Examiner established that the configuration of shield 34
necessarily results in such a change in volume. See In re Robertson, 169
F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Inherency ... may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient."); see Appeal Br. 9.
Weissenfluh discloses that inlets 42, 44 allow radiation shield 34 to be
filled with or drained of fluid. Weissenfluh, 4:16-18, Fig. 5. In addition, a
recirculation system uses inlet and outlet lines 38, 40, motor-driven pump
"P" and reservoir "R," to recirculate fluid through shield 34 for dissipation
of heat and other reasons. Id. at 4: 18-23, Fig. 1. W eissenfluh does not give
any indication that radiation shield 34 is connected to the recirculation
system, or that the recirculation system is designed to operate such that
attenuating liquid flows into or out of radiation shield 34, so as to effect a
4
Appeal2014-002266
Application 12/715,420
change in an overall volume of the interior reservoir of shield 34, upon a
change in the width of an expansion gap, as called for in claim 1.
The Examiner has not explained sufficiently how such a recirculation
system is configured to receive fluid from radiation shield 34 when radiation
shield 34 is squeezed, or to supply additional fluid to the interior reservoir of
shield 34 as an expansion gap expands, as claimed. W eissenfluh illustrates
pump "P" as being driven by motor "M" and connected to both inlet line 38
and outlet line 40 and positioned between radiation shield 34 and reservoir
"R." Weissenfluh, Fig. 1. Thus, reservoir "R" is not connected directly to
radiation shield 34. Weissenfluh provides insufficient details as to how, or
under what conditions, pump "P" is controlled to supply fluid from reservoir
"R" to shield 34. There is insufficient evidence to support the Examiner's
finding that W eissenfluh discloses a bladder "configured to expand and
contract with corresponding changes in a width of the expansion gap to
change an overall volume of the interior reservoir" of the bladder and "an
expansion tank in fluid communication with the interior reservoir and
configured to receive the fluid from the reservoir when the flexible outer
bladder is squeezed as the expansion gap is closed ... and supply additional
fluid to the reservoir as the expansion gap expands," as required in claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 15-17.
Claims 6, 7, and 8 as unpatentable over Weissenjluh and Harp
The Examiner relied on Harp to teach a sight gauge for indicating a
fluid level in the expansion tank, as recited in dependent claims 6-8, but not
to overcome any deficiencies of W eissenfluh as discussed above. Final Act.
8-9; Ans. 5---6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6-8.
5
Appeal2014-002266
Application 12/715,420
Claims 11-14 as unpatentable over Weissenjluh and Fisher
The Examiner relied on Fisher to teach a two-ply bladder, as recited in
dependent claims 11-14, but not to overcome deficiencies of W eissenfluh as
discussed above. Final Act. 9-11; Ans. 6-8. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 11-14.
Claim 18 as unpatentable over Weissenjluh and Thome
The Examiner relied on Thome to teach a debris shield, as recited in
dependent claim 18, but not to overcome any deficiencies in Weissenfluh as
discussed above. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 4--5. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 18.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 4, and 6-18.
REVERSED
6