Ex Parte Wepfer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2017

13272524 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/272,524 10/13/2011 Robert M. Wepfer NSD2011-002 1051
26353 7590 04/24/2017
WF S TTN (TH OT TSF. FT FFTRIF POMP ANY T T C EXAMINER
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
LIN, KO-WEI
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2017 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 @ wes tinghou se. 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 ROBERT M. WEPFER, JAMES R. SCHWALL,
CHRISTOPHER A. WEINDORF, and JOHN R. BALAVAGE
Appeal 2015-0082251
Application 13/272,5242
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our Decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Apr. 1,
2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 10, 2015), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 30, 2015) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed Dec. 18, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Westinghouse Electric
Company LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-008225
Application 13/272,524
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, “[the] invention relates generally to tube
support arrangements for steam generators and more particularly to a tube
support arrangement for a tube and shell steam generator that minimizes
clogging of the recirculation flow holes in the tube support plates among the
outside of the heat exchanger tubes.” Spec. 11.
CLAIMS
Claims 1—14 are on appeal. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on
appeal and recites:
1. A tube and shell steam generator comprising:
an elongated shell having an axis extending along the
elongated dimension;
a tube sheet within the shell supported substantially
transverse to the axis;
a plurality of heat exchange tubes extending axially from
the tube sheet within the shell, with the plurality of heat exchange
tubes forming a tube bundle in which a primary fluid passes
within the heat exchange tubes and a secondary fluid passes
around the outside of the heat exchange tubes; and
a plurality of tandemly spaced tube support plates
respectively positioned substantially transverse to the axis and
extending substantially over a width of the tube bundle, with
substantially each of the plurality of heat exchange tubes passing
through a separate, corresponding tube support hole axially
extending through at least some of the tube support plates,
wherein the tube support plates are designed to pass the
secondary fluid through the tube support holes in the tube support
plates with a flow of the fluid regulated so the flow is larger
through some of the tube support holes of the tube support plates
than other of the tube support holes of the tube support plates.
Appeal Br. 10.
2
Appeal 2015-008225
Application 13/272,524
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wilson4 in view of Gilbreath.5
2. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wilson in view of Gilbreath and Hawkins.6
DISCUSSION
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Wilson
discloses a device including an elongated shell, a tube sheet, a plurality of
heat exchange tubes, and a plurality of tandemly spaced tube support plates.
Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that “Wilson fails to teach
substantially each of plurality of tubes comprising each of said plurality of
heat exchange tubes passing through a separate corresponding tube support
hole so the flow is larger through some of the tube support holes than other
of the tube support holes.” Id. The Examiner finds that Gilbreath teaches a
plurality of tubes each passing through a separate support hole “so the flow
is larger through some of the tube support holes than other of the tube
support holes.” Id. at 4 (citing Gilbreath Fig. 1). The Examiner concludes
that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of invention to modify Wilson by replacing the tube support plates with
the tube support device as taught by Gilbreath in order to provide a more
secured and stronger support for tubes.” Final Act. 4.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. See Ans. 8.
4 Wilson, US 6,059,022, iss. May 9, 2000.
5 Gilbreath, US 8,342,474 B2, iss. Jan. 1, 2013.
6 Hawkins et al., US 6,189,212 Bl, iss. Feb. 20, 2001.
3
Appeal 2015-008225
Application 13/272,524
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the proposed
combination of art would not result in a device as claimed. In particular, the
claim requires a plurality of tandemly spaced tube support plates such that
substantially each of the heat exchange tubes pass through a separate support
hole and including a design that allows for the flow of secondary fluid
around the tubes and through the support holes at different flow rates. We
find that the Examiner has not shown how or why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have combined the references to include the design claimed,
including the use of support holes that regulate the flow of secondary fluid
as claimed. In particular, we agree with Appellants that Wilson discloses
support plates with support holes of substantially the same size in which
bundles of four tubes pass through each support hole and that
[w]hile Gilbreath teaches a support block having different size
holes, each hole is sized to mate with the outside diameter of the
tubular member it is intended to support and there is no teaching
of providing a space on the outside of the tubular member for the
passage of a fluid over and around the outside of the tubular
member through the support block.
Appeal Br. 6. Thus, we find that Gilbreath, at best, would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into Wilson’s device a support plate
with individual holes for the tubes, wherein each hole is sized to mate with
the outside diameter of the tube. This finding appears to be supported by the
Examiner’s conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have relied
on Gilbreath’s individual tube supports “to provide a more secured and
stronger support for tubes.” Final Act. 4. However, we do not see any
indication in the cited portions of Wilson or Gilbreath that the combination
would have led to the design as claimed, including varying the size of the
support holes to regulate secondary fluid flow, and, therefore, we are not
4
Appeal 2015-008225
Application 13/272,524
persuaded that the Examiner’s proposed combination would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to produce a device as claimed. We note that the
Examiner finds that the different sized tubes in Gilbreath would necessarily
allow for larger flow through some of the tubes and support holes, but there
is inadequate support that this would have led to the design claimed in which
the support holes vary in size such that secondary fluid flow rate varies, i.e.
varying the flow rate of fluid surrounding the tubes and not the fluid within
the tubes.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of reversible error with respect to the
rejection of claim 1, and, thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of the dependent
claims 2—14, the rejections of which rely on the same error discussed with
respect to the rejection of independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—14 for the reasons set forth
above.
REVERSED
5