Ex Parte White et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 19, 201510935157 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID WHITE, DANIEL R. LUTZ, YANG-PI LIN, JOHN SCHARDT, and GERALD POTTS ____________________ Appeal 2012-012703 Application 10/935,157 Technology Center 1700 ____________________ Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 8–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-012703 Application 10/935,157 2 The claims are directed to a method for manufacturing a nuclear reactor component. Claim 1, with limitations of importance emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A method for manufacturing a nuclear reactor component comprising: preparing a zirconium-base alloy including a tin content of between about 1.30 and 1.60 wt%; a chromium content of between about 0.06 and 0.15 wt%; an iron content of between about 0.17 and 0.24 wt%; and a nickel content of between about 0.05 and 0.08 wt%; wherein a total content of the iron, chromium and nickel included in the zirconium-base alloy is no less than about 0.31 wt%; a balance being zirconium and unavoidable impurities; forming a hollow billet from the zirconium-base alloy, the hollow billet having an outer diameter ranging from 40 to 100 mm; performing a rapid β-quench on the hollow billet with a quench rate on an outer surface of at least 50°C/second to a temperature below 300°C to form a quenched billet; forming the nuclear reactor component from the quenched billet; performing a post-extrusion late-stage beta quench on the component with a quench rate on the outer surface of at least 100°C/second to a temperature below 300°C; and completing formation of the nuclear reactor component; Appeal 2012-012703 Application 10/935,157 3 wherein formation of the nuclear reactor component is limited to an extrusion temperature of less than about 680°C and a temperature less than about 625 °C at all stages after extrusion, exclusive of the post-extrusion late-stage solution treatment; wherein the nuclear reactor component includes a surface region including secondary phase precipitates, the secondary phase precipitates having a mean diameter no greater than about 40 nm; and further wherein a wetted surface of the nuclear reactor component has a surface roughness no greater than about 0.50 µm Ra. Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 21–22 (emphasis added.) The Examiner maintains the following rejections:1 A. The rejection of claims 1–6, 8–11, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Adamson2 in view of Andersson.3 B. The rejection of claims 12–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Adamson in view of Andersson further in view of Andersson II.4 C. The rejection of claims 15–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Adamson in view of Andersson further in view of Adamson II.5 1 The Examiner has withdrawn provisional rejections that had been made on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. Ans. 4–5. 2 Adamson et al., US 5,437,747, issued Aug. 1, 1995. 3 Andersson, US 5,876, 524, issued Mar. 2, 1999. 4 Andersson et al., US 6,524,169 B1, issued Feb. 25, 2003 (hereinafter “Andersson II”). 5 Adamson et al., US 6,243,433 B1, issued June 5, 2001 (hereinafter “Adamson II”). Appeal 2012-012703 Application 10/935,157 4 OPINION All of the claims require a step of “performing a post-extrusion late- stage beta quench” on a component formed from a quenched billet and further require that formation of the component be limited to “a temperature less than about 625 °C at all stages after extrusion, exclusive of the post- extrusion late-stage solution treatment.” According to the Examiner, Adamson teaches “performing a post- extrusion solution treatment on at least the outer region of the nuclear reactor component followed by a rapid quench (i.e. the claimed β-quench)” at column 8, lines 57–67. Ans. 6. The Examiner looks to column 9, lines 4– 41 to support a finding that Adamson teaches not subjecting the component to a temperature greater than about 625°C subsequent to extrusion, exclusive of the post-extrusion solution treatment. Id. The portions of Adamson relied upon by the Examiner are part of a disclosure of a known “‘process 1’” that is differentiated from the “‘new processes’” described as inventive. Adamson, col. 8, ll. 22–29. In known “process 1,” the extruded component (tubeshell) of Zircaloy-2 is heat treated at about 927°C on the outer 30% of the wall. Adamson, col. 8, ll. 17–19 and 57–58. Adamson states that this temperature of about 927°C is in the alpha plus beta crystalline region. Adamson, col. 8, ll. 57–58. Elsewhere, Adamson states that for Zircaloy-2, “the pure beta phase exists at temperatures above about 960°C.” Adamson, col. 4, ll. 59– 60. In the context of known “process 1,” Adamson only discloses quenching from about 927°C, a temperature much lower than the beta quench temperatures of above about 960°C. The temperature disclosed by Appeal 2012-012703 Application 10/935,157 5 Adamson is not touching the beta region temperature as found by the Examiner. Ans. 11. The Examiner also finds that Adamson discloses performing a post- extrusion solution treatment in the beta region in column 5, lines 30–33. Ans. 11. But column 5, lines 30–33 describes the forming of a fine dense microstructure by heating and quenching in the beta or alpha plus beta regions in the context of Adamson’s inventive processes, not in the context of the known “process 1.” The inventive processes involve creating or preserving coarse precipitates in the inner region of the component tube by annealing the formed component at temperatures between about 650°C and 750°C. These temperatures are above the post-extrusion temperatures allowed by the claim 1, which requires “a temperature less than about 625 °C at all stages after extrusion, exclusive of the post-extrusion late-stage solution treatment.” The Examiner has made a faulty finding with respect to the post- extrusion late stage quench of Adamson’s known “process 1” and further attempted to combine disparate teachings within the reference without providing a rationale supporting obviousness for the combination. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants’ position that the Examiner fails to establish obviousness. The Examiner’s findings with regard to the other relied upon references do not cure the deficiencies discussed above. CONCLUSION We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. Appeal 2012-012703 Application 10/935,157 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation