Ex Parte Wintermann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 23, 2006

10319345 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BENEDIKT WINTERMANN
____________

Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345
____________

HEARD: MAY 25, 2006
____________

Before FRANKFORT, OWENS and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKFORT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 13, all of the claims pending in the
application.

Appellant’s invention relates to a control rod drive for a
nuclear reactor, in particular for a boiling water reactor, and to
a method for moving a control rod into a reactor core of a nuclear
reactor, in particular for emergency shutdown of the nuclear
reactor. Independent claims 1 and 12 are representative of the
Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

2
subject matter on appeal and a copy of those claims can be found in
the Appendix of Appealed Claims attached to appellant’s brief.

The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Ode et al. (Ode) 3,775,247 Nov. 27, 1973
Satoh et al. (Satoh) 5,581,587 Dec. 3, 1996

Claims 1, 3, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Ode.

Claims 1 through 6 and 9 through 13 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Satoh.

Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Satoh in view of “prior art cited therein”
(answer, page 6), more specifically, in view of Prior Art
Figure 11.

Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we make
Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

3
reference to the answer (mailed October 31, 2005) for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant’s brief (filed January 18, 2005) for the arguments
thereagainst.

OPINION

In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to the
applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we have made the determinations which follow.

On page 2 of appellant’s specification, it is noted that an
objective of the invention is to make it possible for the control
rod to be “moved in carefully and in an improved way in the event
of an emergency shutdown.” More specifically, it is indicated on
page 3 of the specification that the invention proceeds from the
notion of “varying the pressure acting on the hollow piston
(control rod carrying element) by suitably influencing the pressure
drop across the throttle bush and of setting the pressure to the
effect that the speed of the hollow piston changes when the latter
Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

4
is being shot in.” Appellant notes that as a result of the
foregoing a suitable speed profile, which avoids critical load
peaks, can therefore be formed over the move-in length of the
hollow piston and that before the moved-in end position of the
hollow piston is reached, the speed is reduced as far as possible,
in order to keep the impact forces low when the hollow
piston/control rod carrying element butts against the throttle
bush.

Looking to Figures 1 and 2 of the application drawings and
pages 5, 12 and 13 of the specification, appellant indicates that
in a preferred arrangement the control rod carrying element (hollow
piston 40) has a reduced outside diameter in the lower region
facing the drive unit so that when the control rod carrying element
moves through the throttle bush (30) the gap between those two
elements changes automatically due to the control rod carrying
element’s changing outside diameter. Appellant specifically notes
that a flow path (42) is formed between the throttle bush (30) and
the control rod carrying element (40) which allows fluid flow from
the inside of the drive housing (8) into the interior (7) of the
nuclear reactor pressure vessel (4). Of critical importance to the
present invention is the fact that the “free flow cross section” of
Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

5
flow path (42) varies as a function of the position of the control
rod carrying element when the control rod carrying element is being
shot-in during an emergency shutdown of the nuclear reactor.

In explaining the significance of the invention as defined in
claim 1 on appeal, appellant notes that in the event of an
emergency shutdown, a pressure fluid is injected via the pressure
line connection (32) in drive housing (8) and can escape only
partially via the flow path (42) because of the high flow
resistance of flow path (42). The control rod carrying element
therefore experiences high acceleration due to the high pressure
build-up in drive housing (8) and the hollow piston/control rod
carrying element (40) which is moved upwardly at a high speed. When
the control rod carrying element (40) reaches an intermediate
position where the narrowing region (48) of the control rod
carrying element arrives at the exit of throttle bush (30), a
reduction in flow resistance across flow path (42) is achieved as a
result of the reduction in outside diameter of the control rod

Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

6
carrying element (40). More particularly, it is noted on page 15
of the specification that

[b]y virtue of the constant and continuous narrowing, a
continuous and uniform reduction in the speed of the
control rod carrying element 40 likewise takes place.
The continuous change in the outside diameter and
consequently the continuous change in the flow resistance
are advantageous for a moving-in which is as uniform and
as jolt-free as possible and is consequently as careful
as possible in terms of material. When the narrowing
region 48 passes the throttle bush 30, the control rod
carrying element 40 is brought into the upper moved-in
portion (Fig. 2) at an essentially constant low speed
over the last travel segment.

Looking to the examiner’s rejections of independent claim 1 on
appeal as being anticipated by Ode or Satoh, we find that we are in
agreement with appellant’s understanding of the meaning of the term
“free flow cross section” as used in the specification and claims
of the present application. Moreover, we agree with appellant’s
assessment (brief, pages 11-24) of the respective control rod
driving apparatuses shown in the applied references to Ode and
Satoh as they have been applied by the examiner to claim 1 on
appeal. In the final analysis, we agree with appellant that
neither Ode nor Satoh teaches or shows a control rod carrying
element and a throttle bush defining there-between a flow path for
a pressure fluid, said flow path leading beyond the throttle bush
Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

7
and having a free flow cross section varying in dependence on a
position of the control rod carrying element, as recited in claim 1
on appeal. Thus, for the reasons adequately set forth by appellant
in the brief, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on either Ode or Satoh.

Nor will we sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Ode, the rejection of
dependent claims 2 through 6 and 9 through 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Satoh, or the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Satoh in view of
“prior art cited therein” (i.e., Prior Art Figure 11), since the
examiner’s use of Prior Art Figure 11 in Satoh does nothing to
overcome the deficiency of Satoh noted above in our treatment of
claim 1.

Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

8
Claims 12 and 13 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Ode or Satoh. Independent claim 12 reads
as follows:
12. A method for moving a control rod into a reactor core of
a nuclear reactor, the method comprises the step of:
moving, hydraulically using a pressure fluid, a control rod
carrying element carrying the control rod and guided over a part in
a throttle bush, a flow resistance formed for the pressure fluid
across the throttle bush changing as the control rod carrying
element moves.

Notably absent from claims 12 and 13 is any requirement for a
flow path between the throttle bush and control rod carrying
element that leads beyond the throttle bush and has a “free flow
cross section” varying in dependence on a position of the control
rod carrying element, as was recited in independent claim 1. Claim
12 merely requires “a flow resistance formed for the pressure fluid
across the throttle bush changing as the control rod carrying
element moves.” This broader language encompasses not only the
embodiment of appellant’s invention discussed above in our
treatment of claim 1, but also reads on the embodiment alluded to
on page 6 of the specification wherein a bypass orifice (52) alone
may be provided in a hollow piston/control rod carrying element to
vent pressure fluid into the reactor pressure vessel to reduce the
Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

9
speed of the control rod carrying element before the moved-in end
position is reached during an emergency shutdown. In that regard,
the specification notes that
[a] flow path leading beyond the throttle bush is
therefore also open to the pressure fluid via the bypass
orifice, but is effective only when the bypass orifice is
in the region of the throttle bush during moving-in and,
in particular when the bypass orifice has run through the
throttle bush, that is to say located inside the reactor
pressure vessel. The change in the flow resistance in
this case is determined essentially according to the size
of the bypass orifice. A plurality of bypass orifices in
different length positions of the hollow body may also be
provided.

While we agree with appellant that Satoh does not anticipate
claims 12 and 13 on appeal, we do not share that view with regard
to Ode. In particular, we direct attention to the fact the Ode
shows a bypass orifice (62) in the hollow piston/control rod
carrying element (21) which would function to vent pressure fluid
into the reactor pressure vessel before the moved-in end position
is reached during an emergency shutdown and thus would provide a
flow resistance formed for the pressure fluid across the throttle
bush (33) which changes as the control rod carrying element moves
from a position where the orifice (62) is located within the inner
casing or throttle bush (33) to a moved-in position during an
Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

10
emergency shutdown where the orifice is located above the throttle
bush, as seen in Figure 2 of Ode.

For the above reasons, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ode, but not that of claims 12 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Satoh.

In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed-in-part.

Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Comment [jvn1]: Type or Paste
Address

Appeal No. 2006-1370
Application No. 10/319,345

12
Lerner, Greenberg, Stemer, LLP
P.O. Box 2480
Hollywood, FL 33022-2480

CEF/ki