Ex Parte Stauffer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13156544 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/156,544 06/09/2011
27683 7590 08/02/2018
HA YNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory A venue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John E. Stauffer
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.
53540.03US01 5283
EXAMINER
BURKE, SEAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN E. STAUFFER
Appeal2016-008331
Application 13/156,544
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2016-008331
Application 13/156,544
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § I34(a), Appellant John E. Stauffer appeals
from the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated
July 3, 2014 ("Final Act."), rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, and 13. 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to fuel pellets for laser fusion. Claims 1 and 5
are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A pellet for use as a target in laser fusion, the pellet consisting
of a spherical core of solid palladium that is loaded with a
mixture of deuterium and tritium gases, and is clad in a coating
of heavy metal, said coating having a uniform thickness.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Johnson
Sefcik
us 4,290,847
US 2011/0261919 Al
Sept. 22, 1981
Oct. 27, 2011
Miley, George H., et al., Advances in Proposed D-Cluster Inertial
Confinement Fusion Target, 2010 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 244 032036, available
at http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/244/3/032036) (hereinafter "Miley").
Claims 7, 9, 12, and 14--17 are cancelled. Appeal Brief dated July 10,
2015 ("Br."), at 7-9 (Claims App.). In an Amendment After Final Action
dated January 5, 2015, Appellant cancelled claim 7.
2
Appeal2016-008331
Application 13/156,544
N. Asami, et al., Material Behavior of Highly Deuterated Palladium,
The Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion., 1998, pp. 15-25,
available at http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ Asami/Nmaterialbe.pdf,
(hereinafter "Asami").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3---6, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Johnson and Miley.
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Miley, and Sefcik.
3. Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson, Miley, and Asami.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
Independent claim 1 recites, in part, "a spherical core of solid
palladium that is loaded with a mixture of deuterium and tritium gases."
Independent claim 5 recites, in part, "a solid core loaded with hydrogen,
wherein the hydrogen is a mixture of deuterium and tritium gases and the
solid core is palladium."
The Examiner finds that Johnson discloses all of the limitations of
claims 1 and 5, except for a "core of solid palladium that is loaded with a
mixture of deuterium and tritium gases" as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 4)
and "the solid core is palladium" as recited in claim 5 (id. at 5). The
Examiner relies on Miley for these missing limitations stating that "Miley
discloses the loading of deuterium and tritium gases into a metal, such as
3
Appeal2016-008331
Application 13/156,544
palladium." Id. at 4 (citing Miley, 2, § 2); see also id. at 5. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to "have combined the pellet
design and D-T [i.e., deuterium-tritium] core of Johnson with the hydrogen
loaded palladium core of Miley, because Miley suggests the use of
deuterium loaded palladium in conjunction with ICF [i.e., inertial
confinement fusion] targets for the predictable purpose of creating a target
with a high density of fusion fuel." Id. (citing Miley, 4, § 4). The Examiner
also determines that "the use of D-T as the hydrogen in Miley would have
been attractive to the skilled artisan for its high energy release capabilities."
Id.
Appellant asserts that the rejection is erroneous because neither
Johnson nor Miley disclose a solid core, much less a solid palladium core,
loaded with a mixture of deuterium and tritium gases, as recited in claim 1.
Br. 4-5. We agree that Johnson discloses hollow microcapsules, not a solid
core, loaded with deuterium and tritium gas. Johnson, Abstract, 14:20-22.
We also agree that Miley discloses a solid palladium core loaded only with
deuterium. See Miley, 2, § 2 ("This high density deuterium cluster is
achieved through electrochemically loading-unloading HID into a thin metal
film, such as Palladium (Pd).").
Appellant also argues that "the process of loading a core with
deuterium is different from the process for loading palladium with tritium at
least in that tritium oxide in heavy water must be used in the latter." Br. 4.
In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner states that "deuterium
and tritium are isotopes of hydrogen and behave identically at a chemical
level," and "[t]here is a long history of using tritium as a nuclear fuel and
employing tritium-impregnated palladium has been a part of this history for
4
Appeal2016-008331
Application 13/156,544
at least the last forty years." Answer dated December 4, 2015 ("Ans."), 4.
Assuming that the Examiner is correct that it is well known to load
palladium cores with either deuterium or tritium gases, we understand that
Appellant's argument is that the prior art does not disclose that solid
palladium cores have been loaded with a mixture of both deuterium and
tritium gases, as recited in claims 1 and 5.
The Examiner states that "Miley was cited for the principal of
'loading ... deuterium and tritium gases into a metal such as palladium"'
(Ans. 4), "Miley discusses the common use of D-T filled ICF targets" (Final
Act. 5 ( citing Miley, 1, § 1 ), and "hydrogen isotopes are readily absorbed
into a palladium crystal" (Ans. 5). The portions of Miley (page 2, section 2
and page 4, section 4) cited by the Examiner do not support the Examiner's
finding that palladium is loaded with tritium so that, based on this record and
the Examiner's unsupported findings, it is questionable whether Miley' s
disclosure of deuterium can be expanded to other hydrogen isotopes such as
tritium, much less a mixture of deuterium and tritium gases, as recited by
claims 1 and 5. In summary, the Examiner does not persuasively identify
where a solid palladium core loaded with a mixture of deuterium and tritium
gases is taught or suggested by the prior art.
The rejections of independent claims 1 and 5, and their dependent
claims 2--4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13, are not sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8, 10,
11, and 13 are REVERSED.
REVERSED
5