Ex Parte Hyde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2017

12804894 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/804,894 07/30/2010 Roderick A. Hyde 365020CIP/0707-032-010-CI 4542 136716 7590 03/27/2017 HolzerlPLaw, PC 216 16th Street Suite 1350 Denver, CO 80202 EXAMINER MCGUE, FRANK J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2017 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): docket @ holzerlPlaw. com docketing @ terrapo wer. com hiplaw@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RODERICK A. HYDE, MURIEL Y. ISHIKAWA, CLARENCE T. TEGREENE, JOSHUA C. WALTER, LOWELL L. WOOD, JR., and VICTORIA Y.H. WOOD Appeal 2015-0024311 Application 12/804,894 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES A. WORTH, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 The Appellants3 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ decision rejecting claims 1, 5—7, 19, 21, and 104—106. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We note related Appeals 2014-008792 (application 12/660,157), 2015- 000160 (application 12/660,025), and 2015-000164 (application 12/804,950). 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July 21, 2014), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 24, 2014), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 30, 2010), and to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 28, 2014) and Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed Feb. 21, 2014). 3 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Terrapower LLC. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2015-002431 Application 12/804,894 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants’ invention “generally relates to the thermal storage and subsequent utilization of nuclear reactor generated energy.” Spec. 13. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced below: 1. A method, comprising: diverting a first selected portion of energy from a portion of a first nuclear reactor system of a plurality of nuclear reactor systems to at least one auxiliary thermal reservoir; diverting at least one additional selected portion of energy from a portion of at least one additional nuclear reactor system of the plurality of nuclear reactor systems to the at least one auxiliary thermal reservoir; and supplying at least a portion of thermal energy from the at least one auxiliary thermal reservoir to at least one energy conversion system of at least one nuclear reactor system of the plurality of nuclear reactor systems. Appeal Br. 62 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS ON APPEAL I. Claims 1, 5—7, 19, 104, and 105 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 5,013,519, iss. May 7, 1991). II. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by “FAS Military Analysis Network: Nuclear Propulsion,” (Feb. 29, 2000), retrieved from http://www.fas.org/man/dod- 101/sys/ship/eng/reactor.html (retrieved Nov. 29, 2013) (hereafter “FAS”). 2 Appeal 2015-002431 Application 12/804,894 III. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Heneman (US 6,026,349, iss. Feb. 15, 2000). IV. Claim 106 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Shinnar (US 2009/0178409 Al, pub. July 16, 2009). ANALYSIS Rejection I—Anticipation by Nakamura Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part, supplying at least a portion of thermal energy from the thermal reservoir to at least one energy conversion system of at least one of the nuclear reactor systems. Appeal Br. 62 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Nakamura discloses supplying a portion of energy as recited in claim 1 at Figure 5 and column 5, lines 34—38. Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that “Nakamura takes heat (thermal energy in the claim language) from the heat accumulating pool 16 to a heat supply piping 17 which supplies heat to a nearby city. In short, the energy conversion system converts the heat of the heat accumulating pool 16 into thermal energy to the city.” Ans. 7. Nakamura discloses “an autonomous, decentralized fast breeder reactor system which operates in an autonomous manner while exhibiting a high degree of safety and reliability,” as depicted in Figure 1, reproduced below. Nakamura, col. 1,11. 36—38, Fig. 1. 3 Appeal 2015-002431 Application 12/804,894 FI G. 1 17 Figure 1 showing Nakamura’s fast breeder reactor system. As shown in Figure 1, Nakamura discloses an “autonomous, decentralized fast breeder reactor 9” {id. at col. 2,11. 64—65) within which are, in relevant part, a plurality of unit-type nuclear reactors 22, each with a small-scale fast breeder core, and a direct core cooling device 24 (not shown above) {id. at col. 2,11. 35—36, 64—67, Figs. 1, 2). Steam generated by the reactor 9 passes into turbine 7 through line 10 to operate generator 8. Id. at 4 Appeal 2015-002431 Application 12/804,894 col. 2,11. 47—51. Steam passed through the turbine is condensed by condenser 11, with the resulting condensate passing through the desalinating device 13 by pump 12, pressurized, and returned to reactor 9 through heater 14 and feed-water line 19. Id. at col. 2,11. 52—57. The heat exhausted by the condenser is transferred to and cooled in the heat accumulating pool 16, i.e., thermal reservoir, using heat pipes 15. Id. at col. 2,11. 57—59, col. 6,11. 43— 44 (claim 3). “The heat in the heat accumulating pool 16 is supplied by the heat supply piping 17.” Id. at col. 2,11. 59-61. In the event of an emergency, the direct core cooling device 24 assures heat removal via a cooler line 18 that connects the pool and the reactor 9. Id. at col. 2,11. 61— 63, col. 4,11. 42-44, col. 6,11. 45—48 (claim 4). “The heat supply piping 17 is laid from the heat accumulating pool to supply heat to a nearby city.” Id. at col. 5,11. 36—38. We find unsupported the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 4) that Nakamura discloses that the heat from the accumulating pool is supplied to a conversion system of at least one of the plurality of nuclear systems. Figure 1 depicts that heat from the pool is supplied to a city via piping 17, as can be seen from the direction of the arrow and described above. See id. at col. 5, 11. 36—38. Figure 1 also shows that heat from the cooling device 24 (within reactor 9) is supplied to the accumulating pool, as can be seen from the direction of the arrow and described above. See id. at col. 4,11. 42-44. Heat returned to the reactor 9 or 22 is via feed-water line 19 from the heater 14 after condensed and desalinated. See id. at col. 2,11. 52—57. The Examiner has not adequately shown where or how Nakamura discloses that supplying heat to the city entails that the heat supply piping 17 is a conversion system that converts the latent heat from the pool to “useful heat provided to the 5 Appeal 2015-002431 Application 12/804,894 city” (Ans. 7) or that the heat is supplied to any system of the nuclear reactor system. Thus, we agree with the Appellants that Nakamura does not disclose that heat from the pool is supplied to a conversion system of at least one nuclear reactor system. See Appeal Br. 21. Therefore, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Nakamura, and we do not sustain that rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5-7, 19, 104, and 105. Rejection II—Anticipation by FAS Independent claim 1 requires, in relevant part, diverting a portion of energy from a first and an additional nuclear reactor system to an auxiliary thermal reservoir. Appeal Br. 62 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that FAS discloses diverting as recited in claim 1 at pages 2 and 3.4 Final Act. 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that FAS discloses a plurality of nuclear reactor systems that divert energy to a steam generator, i.e., auxiliary thermal reservoir. Id. The Examiner also finds that the reactors generate heat used to generate steam in the steam generator; the steam is diverted to the thermal reservoir of the secondary system. Ans. 8 (citing FAS 1,2). FAS discloses a system with two reactor compartments whereby heat from the water in the primary system consisting of a nuclear reactor, piping 4 We note that although the reference did not originally include page numbers, the Examiner has indicated page numbers that make it clear to what the Examiner refers. We use these indicated page numbers as well, with page 1 including the title “Nuclear Propulsion” and marked in the top right comer as “Page 1 of 8.” 6 Appeal 2015-002431 Application 12/804,894 loops, pumps, and steam generators, is transferred to a secondary system to create steam. FAS 1. The secondary system comprises turbine generators, main propulsion turbines, a condenser, and feed pumps. Id. “After passing through the turbines, the steam is condensed into water which is fed back to the steam generators by the feed pumps.” Id. Both systems recirculate and renew water. Id. We find unsupported the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 5) that FAS discloses that a portion of the energy from each of the plurality of reactors is diverted to a thermal reservoir, as required by the claim. Whether the heat from the reactors is transferred to the steam generator (Final Act. 5) or the secondary system (Ans. 8), the Examiner has not adequately shown or explained where or how FAS discloses that a portion of the heat from two reactor systems is diverted to a reservoir. We find persuasive the Appellants’ arguments that FAS does not disclose the steam generator being a reservoir (see Appeal Br. 53) and does not disclose that condensing steam into water “stor[es] heat” like a reservoir (see Reply Br. 8). Although FAS discloses two reactor compartments, presumably each with a reactor, we find persuasive the Appellants’ argument that FAS does not disclose that the plurality of reactor systems divert a portion of the heat to one reservoir. See id. at 58. Therefore, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as anticipated by FAS, and we do not sustain that rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Rejection III and IV - Obviousness Each of claims 21 and 106 ultimately depends from independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 65, 78 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the 7 Appeal 2015-002431 Application 12/804,894 same inadequately supported finding as in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 21 and 106. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5—7, 19, 21, and 104—106 is REVERSED. REVERSED 8