Ex Parte Ahlfeld et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 18, 2014

12286548 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHARLES E. AHLFELD, JOHN ROGERS GILLELAND, RODERICK A. HYDE, MURIEL Y. ISHIKAWA, DAVID G. MCALEES, NATHAN P. MYHRVOLD, THOMAS ALLAN WEAVER, CHARLES WHITMER, and LOWELL L. WOOD, JR. ____________________ Appeal 2012-007172 Application 12/286,548 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 87, 88, 91, and 95. Claims 1–86 are canceled. Claims 89, 90, 93, 94, and 96–100 are withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2012-007172 Application 12/286,548 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method of transferring heat of a nuclear fission deflagration wave reactor. Claims 87 and 92 are independent. Claim 87, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 87. A method of transferring heat of a nuclear fission deflagration wave reactor, the method comprising: propagating a nuclear fission deflagration wave in nuclear fission fuel material in a reactor core assembly of a nuclear fission deflagration wave reactor; and during propagating a nuclear fission deflagration wave, transferring heat from the propagating nuclear fission deflagration wave to at least one primary heat pipe. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hampel Gou US 4,851,183 US 5,684,848 July 25, 1989 Nov. 4, 1997 Peterson US 2008/0069289 A1 Mar. 20, 2008 Edward Teller et al., Completely Automated Nuclear Reactors for Long-Term Operation II: Toward A Concept-Level Point-Design Of A High- Temperature, Gas-Cooled Central Power Station System, UCRL-JC-122708 Pt. 2, 139, (June 20, 1996)1 (Teller ‘96). Edward Teller et al., Completely Automated Nuclear Power Reactors For Long-Term Operation: III. Enabling Technology For Large-Scale, 1 Appellants correctly note that there is some confusion as to which Teller reference is relied upon to reject claims 87, 88, 91, 92, and 95 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in the first instance; however, as also correctly noted by Appellants, the Teller reference cited by the Examiner does not have 21 pages. Reply Br. 21. Nevertheless, Appellants persuasively argue the rejection as discussed infra, and accordingly, we hold this error in identification of the reference relied upon to reject the claims to be harmless. Appeal 2012-007172 Application 12/286,548 3 Low-Risk, Affordable Nuclear Electricity, Workshop of the Aspen Global Change Institute, 157 (July 2003) (Teller ‘03). REJECTIONS2 Claims 87, 88, 91, 92, and 95 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Teller ‘96 or Teller ‘03. Claims 87, 88, 91, 92, and 95 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Teller ‘96 and Peterson, Gou, or Hampel. OPINION The Examiner finds that Teller ‘96 discloses each and every limitation of independent claim 87. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Teller ‘96 discloses “during propagating a nuclear fission deflagration wave, transferring heat from the propagating nuclear fission deflagration wave to at least one primary heat pipe.” Ans. 5. In support of this finding, the Examiner quotes the following from Teller ‘96: “We cannot depend on pumps for powering gas circulation in the latter case, but instead will use the natural thermosyphon present from having a heat source located below a heat sink. (Obviously, heat pipes may also prove to be an attractive option for this passive heat removal function).” Ans. 6 (citing Teller ‘96, p. 21). Appellants argue that “the only use of heat pipes disclosed by Teller [‘96] is for removal of decay heat.” Reply Br. 29. In support of this argument, Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner’s Answer, though, neglected to state what ‘the latter case’ refers to in the portion of Teller [‘96] quoted in the Examiner’s Answer. Id. However, Appellants contend that regarding the portion of Teller [‘96] quoted in the Examiner’s Answer, ‘the 2 The rejections of claims 87, 88, 91, 92, and 95 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112, first and second paragraphs are withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. Ans. 4. Appeal 2012-007172 Application 12/286,548 4 latter case’ refers to decay heat removal after the end of operational life.” Id. The relevant portion of Teller ‘96 states: Helium gas is used to transport heat out of the core both during normal operations and for afterheat removal; the principal distinctions between these two functions arise in how the gas is pumped and how the heat is ultimately removed, outside of the core. The primary coolant loop transports more heat, but does so under normal operational conditions. Pumps are used to circulate the gas flow between the underground reactor and the surface powerplant. The secondary loop transports less heat, but under more stringent conditions, either during loss-of- coolant accidents or entirely unattended, over very long intervals of post-operational life. We cannot depend on pumps for powering gas circulation in the latter case, but instead will use the natural thermosyphon action present from having a heat source located below a heat sink. (Obviously, heatpipes may also prove to be an attractive option for this passive heat removal function.) Teller ‘96, p. 21 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellants’ argument that in this passage “the only use of heat pipes disclosed by Teller [‘96] is for removal of decay heat” is persuasive. Reply Br. 29. The Examiner does not identify nor do we discern any other section of Teller ‘96 that describes “during propagating a nuclear fission deflagration wave, transferring heat from the propagating nuclear fission deflagration wave to at least one primary heat pipe” as required by claim 87. Appeal Br. 108, Clms. App. The Examiner has not established that this feature is disclosed in Teller ’96 merely because Teller teaches a propagating wave reactor with coolant pipes for primary cooling and decay heat removal. See Ans. 8; see also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). Appeal 2012-007172 Application 12/286,548 5 For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 87, and claims 88 and 91, which depend therefrom, as anticipated by Teller ‘96. The rejection of claims 87, 88, and 91 as anticipated by Teller ‘03 suffers from the same deficiencies. According, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 87, 88, and 91 as anticipated by Teller ‘03. Independent claim 92 also requires “during propagating a nuclear fission deflagration wave, transferring heat from the propagating nuclear fission deflagration wave to at least one primary heat pipe. Appeal Br. 109, Clms. App. Thus, the rejection of claim 92 suffers from the same deficiencies as the rejection of claim 87. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 92, and claim 95, which depends therefrom, as anticipated by Teller ‘96 or Teller ‘03. Obviousness None of Peterson, Gou, or Hampel cures the deficiencies in the rejections of claims 87, 88, 91, 92, and 95 discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 87, 88, 91, 92, and 95 as obvious is in view of the combined teachings of Teller ’96 or Teller ‘03 and Perterson, Gou, or Hampel. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 87, 88, 91, 92, and 95 are REVERSED. REVERSED llw