Ex Parte Singleton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 6, 2013

11733248 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/733,248 04/10/2007 Norman R. Singleton NPP2006-002 7830
26353 7590 05/07/2013
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
Cranberry Township, PA 16066
EXAMINER
BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2013 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 NORMAN R. SINGLETON, DAVID A. ALTMAN, CHING YU,
JAMES A. REX, and DAVID R. FORSYTH
____________

Appeal 2011-000603
Application 11/733,248
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, RICHARD E. RICE,
and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges.

ABRAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Norman R. Singleton et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 14-16.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2011-000603
Application 11/733,248

2
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a pressurized water nuclear
reactor pressure vessel having in-core instrumentation to monitor the neutron
activities and coolant temperature within the core fuel assemblies.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A pressurized water nuclear reactor pressure vessel comprising:
an upper support plate;
a removable upper head;
a plurality of rod cluster control assembly upper guide tubes,
each guide tube extending from the upper support plate toward the
removable upper head; and
a plurality of in-core instrumentation assembly column
extensions, each column extension continuously extending from and
being supported by a horizontal section of the support plate and
extending toward the removable upper head to an elevation
substantially at or above the rod cluster control assembly upper guide
tubing, and each column extension connected by a bracket to one of
the upper guide tubes and each column extension provides support for
in-core instrumentation over substantially the entire length of the
column extension.

THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Chevereau US 5,057,270 Oct. 15, 1991
Tower US 5,078,957 Jan. 7, 1992
Matsumoto US 5,995,575 Nov. 30, 1999
Johnson
Yonemoto
US 6,158,706
US 2007/0019774 A1
Dec. 12, 2000
Jan. 25, 2007

Appeal 2011-000603
Application 11/733,248

3
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chevereau in view of Matsumoto and further in
view of Tower.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chevereau in view of Matsumoto and Tower, and further
in view of Johnson.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chevereau in view of Matsumoto and Tower, and further
in view of Yonemoto.

OPINION

Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 15 and 16 – Obviousness
Chevereau in view of Matsumoto and Tower
Appellants’ invention is directed to the problem of providing
protection and support from vibrational responses for reactor in-core
instrumentation column extensions that are positioned between the upper
support assembly and the reactor head without requiring the addition of
more framework. To this end, the invention takes advantage of the rigid
construction of the upper guide tubes of the reactor control rods, which also
extend upward through that same area, to secure the top ends of the
instrument column extensions and so provide lateral support for the
extensions to ensure that vibration responses (the natural frequencies) are
sufficiently removed from those of the coolant pump to prevent resonance.
Br. 4-5; Spec 1-2.
Appeal 2011-000603
Application 11/733,248

4
The Examiner has found all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 to
be taught by Chevereau, except for “each column extension is [being]
connected by a bracket to one of the upper guide tubes” (Ans. 4), and “each
column extension provides [providing] support for in-core instrumentation
over substantially the entire length of the column extension” (Ans. 5). With
regard to these shortcomings in Chevereau, the Examiner has taken the
position that “Matsumoto et al. teaches a restraint assembly that connects
guide tubes 158 to each other with a bracket (combination of 152 and 200),”
and it would have been obvious to “apply the restraint assembly to the guide
tubes [of Chevereau] to prevent said guide tubes from experiencing
excessive flow induced vibrations.” Ans. 4. The Examiner has recognized
that Chevereau and Matsumoto fail to teach that each column extension be
supported over substantially its entire length, but has concluded that Tower
discloses this feature, and it would have been obvious to provide the
required support “to provide protection and support for the entire in-core
instrumentation.” Ans. 5. Appellants have set forth a number of arguments
challenging the Examiner’s positions, the thrust of which is that the
combined teachings of Chevereau, Matsumoto and Tower fail to teach that
each in-core instrumentation assembly column extension is connected by a
bracket to one of the rod control assembly upper guide tubes, and that each
column extension provides support for in-core instrumentation over
substantially the entire length of the column extension, from the support
plate extending toward the removable upper head, as is required by claim 1.
Br. 5-8.
Chevereau discloses an instrumentation arrangement for a pressurized
water nuclear reactor which comprises a plurality of rod control assembly
Appeal 2011-000603
Application 11/733,248

5
upper guide tubes (guide tubes 21) and a plurality of in-core instrumentation
assembly column extensions (instrumentation columns) 27 extending from
an upper support plate18/31 toward a removable upper head 3. Col. 5,
ll. 11-29; Fig. 2; see also Ans. 4. Chevereau does not teach connecting each
of the in-core instrumentation assembly column extensions to any other
element extending from the upper support plate in order to provide support
for in-core instrumentation over substantially the entire length thereof, much
less the rod cluster control assembly upper guide tubes.
Matsumoto is directed to a restraint assembly for connecting together
a plurality of in-core instrumentation assembly column extensions (in-core
guide tubes) 158 (Col. 1, ll. 28-31; Fig. 3) to prevent them from
experiencing excessive flow induced vibrations (Col. 1, ll. 43-47). As
shown in Figure 6, each restraint assembly comprises a lattice 300 having
sections 200 which extend between and are attached to a plurality of
adjacent instrument-carrying in-core guide tubes 158 (Col. 4, ll. 1-15), and
an attachment plate 304 by which the restraint assembly is secured to a
shroud (Col. 2, ll. 22-24).1 There is no teaching in Masumoto that the
disclosed restraint assemblies be used to connect together instrument-
carrying in-core guide tubes 158 and tubes having other functions, in order
to provide support against vibrations for the instrument-carrying in-core
guide tubes. Thus, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach that “each
[instrument-carrying] column extension [is] connected by a bracket to one of
the rod cluster control assembly] upper guide tubes,” as required by claim 1.
Nevertheless, the Examiner has taken the position that in view of the

1 The Examiner finds that the restraint assembly “connects guide tubes 158
to each other with a bracket (combination of 152 and 200).” Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-000603
Application 11/733,248

6
teachings of Matsumoto it would have been obvious to connect each
Chevereau in-core instrumentation assembly column extension 27 to a rod
cluster control assembly upper guide tube 21 in order to protect the former
from flow induced vibrations because of the “common motivation and each
prior art reference” (Ans. 4) and the fact that Matsumoto’s lattice “could be
used to connect any variation of guide tubes and instrumentation assembly
column extensions” (Ans. 14).
Tower discloses a pressurized water reactor in which a plurality of
instrumentation containing thimbles 52 extend downwardly through the head
assembly 18 and into reactor core 4 (Col 5, ll. 38-40; Fig. 3), and a plurality
of pressure boundary tubes 48 extend downwardly through closure assembly
18, terminating short of support plate 40b (Col. 5, ll. 48-49; Fig. 3). The
Examiner finds that “Tower et al. teaches column extensions 48 that provide
support for in-core instrumentation 52 over substantially the entire length of
column extension 48 (figure 3),” which suggests “A motivation . . . to
provide protection and support for the entire in-core instrumentation” (Ans.
5). However, the Examiner has not pointed out any teaching in Tower that
confirms the conclusion that boundary tubes 48 do, in fact, “support”
thimbles 52. The Examiner also has failed to explain why it would have
been obvious in view of the Tower disclosure, in which any “support” that
might be provided by boundary tubes 48 would be downward from Tower’s
head assembly 18, to support the Chevereau instrumentation column
extensions 27, which extend upward from Chevereau’s upper support plate
18/31.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings
from the prior art itself would appear to have established the claimed subject
Appeal 2011-000603
Application 11/733,248

7
matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051 (CCPA 1976). “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
It is our view that the reasoning provided by the Examiner constitutes
conclusory statements unsupported by articulated reasoning and rational
underpinning, and we are not persuaded thereby that the teachings set forth
in Matsumoto and Tower would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the modifications to the Chevereau reactor proposed by the Examiner
to render obvious the requirement in claim 1 that “each column [is]
connected by a bracket to one of the upper guide tubes and each column
extension provides support for in-core instrumentation over substantially the
entire length of the column extension.” This being so, the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter recited in independent claim 1, and therefore this rejection
cannot be sustained. It follows that the like rejection of claims 2-9, 11, 15
and 16, which depend from claim1, also will not be sustained. Independent
claim 12 also includes the above-noted limitation, and the like rejection of
claim 12 is not sustained.
Claim 10 – Obviousness
Chevereau in view of Matsumoto, Tower and Johnson
Claim 10 depends from claim 1. Johnson was cited for its teaching of
connecting one or more support columns by screwing mating threads
together. Ans. 10. However, the teachings of Johnson do not overcome the
Appeal 2011-000603
Application 11/733,248

8
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1, and therefore this rejection is not
sustained.
Claim 14 – Obviousness
Chevereau in view of Matsumoto, Tower and Yonemoto
Claim 14 depends from claim 1. Yonemoto was cited for its teaching
of terminating the ends of the instrumentation assembly column extensions
between the upper support plate and the reactor upper head. Ans. 11.
However, the teachings of Yonemoto do not overcome the deficiencies in
the rejection of claim 1, and therefore this rejection is not sustained.
DECISION
All three of the rejections are reversed.

REVERSED

tj