Ex Parte Frank et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 3, 2016

12834963 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/834,963 07/13/2010
26353 7590 03/07/2016
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
Cranberry Township, PA 16066
Courtney B. Frank
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.
NSD2008-016 9415
EXAMINER
MCGUE, FRANK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2016 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@westinghouse.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 COURTNEY B. FRANK, MICHAEL D. CONRAD,
JEFFREY C. HIMLER, DANIEL J. ERDMAN, and
MICHELLE HEINZ CARNICELLI
Appeal 2014-001479 1,2
Application 12/834,963
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed July 13,
2010), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Sept. 13, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br." filed Nov. 13, 2013), as well as the Examiner's Answer
("Answer," mailed Nov. 6, 2013).
2 According to Appellants, "[ t ]he real party in interest is Westinghouse
Electric Company LLC." Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-001479
Application 12/834,963
According to Appellants, the invention "pertains generally to control
rod drive mechanism seismic supports for nuclear power plants[,] and[,]
more particularly[,] to a quick disconnect seismic support tie rod system."
Spec. i-f 1. We reproduce, below, independent claim 1 as representative of
the appealed claims.
1. A nuclear plant comprising:
a reactor vessel supported within a cavity of a containment
facility, the reactor vessel having a detachable head assembly;
a portion of a containment structure within the
containment facility located adjacent the cavity;
an anchor secured to a first segment of the portion of the
containment structure, out of reach of an operator located on a
second segment of the portion of the containment structure;
a plurality of tie rods for supporting the reactor vessel head
assembly, at least some of the tie rods having one end connected
to the reactor vessel head assembly and another end structured to
removably engage and disengage the anchor while the anchor
remains secured to the first segment of the portion of the
containment structure; and
a locking mechanism mechanically attached to the anchor
and directly accessible and operable by the operator from the
location on the second segment of the portion of the containment
structure remote from the anchor, to lock or unlock the another
end of the tie rod in or from engagement with the anchor.
Appeal Br. 19, Claims App.
2
Appeal2014-001479
Application 12/834,963
REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART3
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Altman
(US 4,830,814, iss. May 16, 1989) and Erbes (US 5,683,216, iss. Nov. 4,
1997);
claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Altman, Erbes,
and Baliga (US 6,546,066 B2, iss. Apr. 8, 2003);
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Altman, Erbes,
Baliga, and Ostergren (US 6,067 ,823, iss. May 30, 2000); and
claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Altman,
Erbes, and Sodergard (US 3,625,819, iss. Dec. 7, 1971).
See Answer 2-8.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1, from which claims 2-8 depend, recites
an anchor secured to a first segment of the portion of the
containment structure, out of reach of an operator located on a
second segment of the portion of the containment structure; [and]
a plurality of tie rods for supporting the reactor vessel head
assembly, at least some of the tie rods having one end connected
to the reactor vessel head assembly and another end structured to
removably engage and disengage the anchor while the anchor
remains secured to the first segment of the portion of the
containment structure.
Appeal Br. 19, Claims App. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude
that the Examiner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
3 The Examiner withdraws a rejection under Section 112 made in the Final
Office Action mailed June 19, 2013. See Answer 8.
3
Appeal2014-001479
Application 12/834,963
Altman discloses these limitations, and, thus, we do not sustain any of the
obviousness rejections of claims 1-8.
As presented above, each of the rejected claims requires an anchor
that remains secured to a containment structure when a tie rod that supports
a reactor vessel head assembly is disconnected from the anchor. The
Examiner finds that Altman discloses the claimed anchor because in Altman,
"[a]n anchor is secured to a first segment of the portion of the containment
structure (see plate at distal end of stabilizing member 115 in Fig. 2, also col.
4, line 65 [-] col. 5, line 2)." Answer 2-3. However, as Appellants point
out, Altman neither shows nor describes that any portion of Altman's
stabilizing member 115, such as the plate referenced by the Examiner, is an
anchor that remains secured to the wall when another portion of stabilizing
member 115 is disconnected from the anchor. See Appeal Br. 7-9.
The Examiner alternatively characterizes "the indentation where the
plate is embedded into the wall" in Altman's Figure 2 as the claimed anchor,
for the first time in the Response to Arguments section of the Answer.
Answer 9. We determine, however, that even if we accept that Altman
indeed illustrates a wall indentation, the Examiner does not establish that an
indentation in a wall of a containment structure is somehow secured to the
wall of the containment structure, as required by claim 1.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. As
stated above, each of claims 2-8 depends from claim 1, and, inasmuch as the
Examiner does not establish that any other reference remedies the deficiency
in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain any of the rejections of
the dependent claims.
4
Appeal2014-001479
Application 12/834,963
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5