Ex Parte Liao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

13778565 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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.
13/778,565 02/27/2013 Jun Liao RTU 2012-003 6955
26353 7590 08/24/2017
WF S TTN (TH OT TSF. FT FFTRIF POMP ANY T T C EXAMINER
1000 Westinghouse Drive
Suite 141
DAVIS, SHARON M
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2017 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):
guerral @ wes tinghou se. 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 JUN LIAO and VEFA N. KUCUKBOYACI
(Applicant: Westinghouse Electric Company LLC)
Appeal 2016-005901
Application 13/778,5651
Technology Center 3600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—9, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention “relates generally to nuclear
reactors and in particular to pressurized water nuclear reactor systems
1 Appellant identifies itself, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, as the
real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005901
Application 13/778,565
having passive safety features with automatic depressurization of the reactor
coolant circuit to facilitate the injection of additional cooling water into the
cooling circuit.” Spec. 11. More specifically, “[t]he depressurization
system includes a flow restrictor within an orifice in the reactor vessel wall
that connects to a vent pipe which forms a flow path between the interior of
the reactor vessel and the containment atmosphere when a valve within the
vent pipe is in an open position.” Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A nuclear power generation system comprising a reactor
enclosed within a pressure vessel housed within a containment,
the reactor operating at a higher pressure than an area
surrounding the reactor in the containment, the reactor including
a depressurization system for reducing the pressure within the
reactor and venting a liquid coolant within the reactor into the
containment, the depressurization system comprising;
an orifice within a wall of the pressure vessel for venting
the coolant within the pressure vessel into the containment; and
a flow restrictor in flow communication with the orifice
for restricting a critical flow rate of the coolant within the
pressure vessel out of the orifice while enabling sufficient flow
of the coolant to substantially equalize the pressure within the
pressure vessel with the pressure in the area surrounding the
reactor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Galson US 3,123,533 Mar. 3, 1964
Ehrke US 5,154,876 Oct. 13, 1992
2
Appeal 2016-005901
Application 13/778,565
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehrke in view of Galson. Final Act. 3—6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred.2 In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 1—9.
Claims 1, 5, and 7—9
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ehrke and Galson teaches “an orifice within a wall of the pressure vessel for
venting the coolant within the pressure vessel into the containment^ and a
flow restrictor in flow communication with the orifice for restricting a
critical flow rate of the coolant within the pressure vessel out of the orifice,”
as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellant argues:
Neither Ehrke et al. nor Galson address the problem of how to
minimize the cleanup resulting from an inadvertent
depressurization of a reactor system. While Ehrke et al. teach a
depressurization system it does not teach one with a flow
restrictor and while Galson teaches a flow restrictor in a gas line
it teaches the use of such a flow restrictor for a different objective
of minimizing the loss of pressure within the pressure vessel
when there is a loss of pressure downstream in the flow line. . . .
2 Rather than reiterate the entirety of the arguments of Appellant and the
positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 5,
2015); the Final Office Action (mailed July 21, 2015); and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed March 16, 2016) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2016-005901
Application 13/778,565
Therefore, it should not rightfully be considered obvious to
combine the teachings of Ehrke et al. and Galson when neither
reference teaches or suggests placing a flow restrictor in a
depressurization line. . . . However, there is a structural
difference between Claim 1 and Ehrke et al. and Gabon, because
neither reference teaches the combination of a depressurization
system and a venturi, nevertheless one with the venturi located
directly in an orifice in the pressure vessel wall.
Br. 4.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellant argues the references individually
and does not address the combined teachings as relied on by the Examiner,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding the combined teachings of the
references.
Appellant further argues that “the intended use alters the structure of
the venturi, because it would dictate the size of the opening within the
venturi.” Br. 5. More specifically, Appellant argues:
The venturi of [Applicants’] invention would have to have an
opening large enough to enable rapid depressurization sufficient
to prevent the core from being uncovered before additional
coolant could be added under the force of gravity, while the
venture of Gabon has to have an opening small enough to
minimize depressurization.
4
Appeal 2016-005901
Application 13/778,565
Id.
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Instead, the relevant issue is “what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Combining the teachings of references does
not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt,
482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973); see also In reMouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of
obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an
actual, physical substitution of elements.” (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852,
859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (enbanc))).
Appellant has not argued that it would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” to make the
modifications suggested by the Examiner. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Inti
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Absent such an assertion,
we “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ,” and find a person of ordinary skill in
the art would overcome those difficulties within their level of skill. KSR,
550 U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Therefore, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s second argument that the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 7—9, which are not separately
argued. See Br. 5, 6.
5
Appeal 2016-005901
Application 13/778,565
Claims 2 and 3
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ehrke and Galson teaches a “flow restrictor [having] a reduced opening
compared to openings in other conduits in the depressurization system and
the reduced opening is positioned within the orifice and is gauged to provide
the minimum critical flow rate required by the depressurization system,” as
recited in claim 2. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant contends:
Ehrke et al. do not teach a flow restrictor and the flow restrictor
of Galson does not have a reduced opening in the wall of the
pressure vessel; the reduced opening is inside the pressure vessel.
Since neither reference teaches or suggests this feature the same
should not rightfully be considered obvious over Ehrke et al. in
view of Galson.
Id.
As with claim 1, Appellant argues the references individually.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, along
with the rejection of dependent claim 3, which is not argued separately. See
Br. 5.
Claim 4
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ehrke and Galson teaches a venture having “a gradual transition between a
maximum diameter and a minimum diameter of an opening through the
venturi within which the depressurization is communicated,” as recited in
claim 4. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant argues that “the venturi of Galson
shown in Figure 3 has a sharp transition and any other venturi shape that
6
Appeal 2016-005901
Application 13/778,565
Galson may choose to satisfy his purpose has to be designed to minimize the
pressure loss to satisfy Gabon’s objective, which is different than
[Appellant’s].” Id.
The Examiner finds “[t]he flow restrictor/venturi of Galson further
has a gradual transition between a maximum diameter and a minimum
diameter of an opening through the venturi within which the
depressurization is communicated (see Figure 3).” Final Act. 4. The
Examiner further finds:
Figure 3 of Galson shows a gradual decrease in diameter from
the inlet opening at the top of venturi (29) to the minimum
diameter at the narrowest potion of the venturi (101).
Applicant’s arguments fail to specify why he believes that the
diameter decrease of Galson is not gradual. Examiner can find
no definition of the term “gradual” that would not describe the
transition of the venturi of Galson. In fact, the definition of
venturi cited by Examiner requires “a short tube with a tapering
constriction in the middle,” and a taper is defined by
Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster as “a gradual diminution
of thickness, diameter, or width in an elongated object.”
Therefore, the examiner believes that the flow restrictor of
Galson meets the claim limitation.
Ans. 7
Appellant relies on conclusory attorney argument and offers no
evidence to support its assertion, ft is well settled that mere attorney
arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual
evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). Therefore, we are not persuaded
by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with
and adopt the Examiner’s fact finding.
7
Appeal 2016-005901
Application 13/778,565
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Claim 6
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ehrke and Galson teaches “a flow area of the flow restrictor is less than a
flow area of the conduit or the valve,” as recited in claim 6. Br. 5.
Specifically, Appellant argue that “[a]s previously mentioned, Ehrke et al.,
while it teaches a valve, does not teach a flow restrictor and Galson, while it
teaches a flow restrictor, does not teach a valve in line with a flow restrictor
and neither reference teaches or suggests the relative flow areas between a
valve and a flow restrictor.” Id.
As with claim 1, Appellant argues the references individually.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8