Ex Parte Galbally et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 2012

11503268 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID GALBALLY, DANIEL VERNE SOMMERVILLE, MATTHEW CHRISTOPHER O'CONNOR, DANIEL CHARLES PAPPONE, HARDAYAL MEHTA and LESLIE WELLSTEIN ____________ Appeal 2010-006591 Application 11/503,268 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, BRETT C. MARTIN and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006591 Application 11/503,268 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 David Galbally et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) claim 13 as anticipated by Masaya Ohtsuka et al., Study on Acoustic Resonance and Its Damping of BWR Steam Dome, 1-2 (ICAPP ‘06, Jun. 2006)2 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-12 as unpatentable over Ohtsuka, and SYSNOISE, Listen to the sound long before you can hear it, (LMS Publication nr., 4.0/2059/A20/11.96);3,4 and (2) claims 8 and 9 as unpatentable over Ohtsuka and Stan Sclaroff et al., Generalized Implicit Functions For Computer Graphics, 25 Computer Graphics, 247-50 (1991).5 Claim 5 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to methods for predicting acoustic loads that occur during operation of a boiling water reactor (BWR). Spec., para. [0002], and fig. 1. Claims 1 and 13 are illustrative of the claimed invention and read as follows: 1 We note that a corrected version of the Grounds of Rejection (Section 9) of the Examiner’s Answer was mailed in a Miscellaneous Communication on Mar. 11, 2010. 2 Hereafter referred to as “Ohtsuka.” 3 Hereafter referred to as “SYSNOISE.” 4 We note that the 112, second paragraph, rejection referred to in the heading of the 103 rejection (see page 4) of the corrected version (see footnote 1) was withdrawn by the Examiner in the Final Rejection (see page 3), mailed May 20, 2009. 5 Hereafter referred to as “Sclaroff.” Appeal 2010-006591 Application 11/503,268 3 1. A method of predicting stresses on a boiling water reactor (BWR) steam dryer, comprising: acquiring pressure data from a BWR scale model system using at least one of a pressure transducer and a microphone at the BWR scale model system, the pressure data being empirical data; creating an analytical acoustic model of a BWR steam system; generating pressure estimations by inputting the empirical data into the analytical acoustic model of the BWR steam system; creating an analytical structural model of the BWR steam dryer; and predicting stresses on the BWR steam dryer using the analytical structural model and the pressure estimations. 13. A method of predicting stresses on a boiling water reactor (BWR) steam dryer, comprising: creating an analytical acoustic model of a BWR steam system; generating pressure estimations using the analytical acoustic model by inputting empirical data acquired from a BWR scale model system; scaling the pressure estimations generated to represent a full-size BWR steam volume; projecting the scaled pressure estimations on a structural mesh of an analytical structural model for the BWR steam dryer; and solving the analytical structural model using finite element analysis to predict stresses on the BWR steam dryer. Appeal 2010-006591 Application 11/503,268 4 OPINION The anticipation rejection based upon Ohtsuka Independent claim 13 requires the method step of “generating pressure estimations using the analytical acoustic model by inputting empirical data acquired from a BWR scale model system.” App. Br., Claims Appendix. The Examiner takes the position that Ohtsuka teaches, “‘generating pressure estimations by inputting empirical data’ produced in experimental model of BWR dryer system.” Ans. 7.6 See also, Ohtsuka, l. 19. Appellants argue that the acrylic 1/11 scale model (BWR scale model) of Ohtsuka is used only to verify the acoustic analysis of the response function (analytical acoustic model) (i.e., to ensure that the response function (analytical acoustic model) adequately portrays the full scale steam dryer), but Ohtsuka fails to teach acquiring empirical data using the acrylic 1/11 scale model (BWR scale model) and inputting the empirical data into the response function (analytical acoustic model). App. Br. 8. See also, Reply Br. 3 and Ohtsuka, l. 19. We agree. In this case, we could not find any portion of Ohtsuka and the Examiner has failed to point to any portion of Ohtsuka that shows (1) the acrylic 1/11 scale model (BWR scale model) tests include empirical data acquired by the acrylic 1/11 scale model (BWR scale model); or (2) the acrylic 1/11 scale model (BWR scale model) tests used to verify the acoustic analysis of the response function (analytical acoustic model) include inputting empirical data acquired from the acrylic 1/11 scale model (BWR scale model) into the response function (analytical acoustic model). As 6 See the corrected version of the Grounds of Rejection (Section 9) of the Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 11, 2010. See also, footnote 1 above. Appeal 2010-006591 Application 11/503,268 5 such, we agree with Appellants that Ohtsuka fails to teach “generating pressure estimations using the analytical acoustic model by inputting empirical data acquired from a BWR scale model system,” as required by claim 13. App. Br. 8. Accordingly, Ohtsuka does not teach all the limitations of independent claim 13. Therefore, the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Ohtsuka cannot be sustained. The obviousness rejection over Ohtsuka and either SYSNOISE or Sclaroff As discussed above, Ohtsuka fails to disclose the method step of “generating pressure estimations by inputting the empirical data into the analytical acoustic model of the BWR steam system,” as required by independent claim 1. The Examiner’s application of SYSNOISE and Sclaroff as separate additional references in conjunction with Ohtsuka do not remedy the deficiencies of Ohtsuka as described above. Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 1, and its respective dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7 and 10-12, as unpatentable over Ohtsuka and SYSNOISE cannot be sustained. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Furthermore, the rejection of claims 8 and 9 as unpatentable over Ohtsuka and Sclaroff likewise cannot be sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 and 6-13 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2010-006591 Application 11/503,268 6 hh