Ex Parte Reyes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2017

13425776 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 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.
13/425,776 03/21/2012 Jose N. Reyes JR. 6985-9042 8104
127047 7590 11/20/2017
Schwabe Williamson &Wyatt/SFC/NuScale
1211 SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2017 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):
IPDocketing @ S CHWABE.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSE N. REYES JR. and JOHN T. GROOME
Appeal 2016-007628
Application 13/425,776
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3—6, 8—14, 16, 17, and 21—26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify NuScale Power, LLC as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-007628
Application 13/425,776
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to cooling systems for nuclear reactors.
Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with language at issue emphasized, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A power module assembly comprising:
a reactor vessel containing a primary coolant;
a containment vessel surrounding the reactor vessel,
wherein the containment vessel is at least partially submerged
in a containment cooling pool;
one or more inlets configured to draw a secondary
coolant from the containment cooling pool in response to a loss
of power event;
one or more outlets submerged in the containment
cooling pool and configured to vent the secondary coolant into
the containment cooling pool; and
a heat exchanger configured to remove heat from the
primary coolant, wherein the heat is removed by circulating the
secondary coolant from the containment cooling pool through
the heat exchanger via natural circulation and without
intermixing the primary coolant and the secondary coolant.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Germer US 4,678,626 July 7, 1987
Hattori US 6,944,255 B2 Sept. 13,2005
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 11—17 are rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention.
2
Appeal 2016-007628
Application 13/425,776
2. Claims 1, 3—6, 8, 9, 11—14, 16, 21, 22, and 24—26 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hattori.
3. Claims 10, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hattori and Germer.
OPINION
Indefiniteness of Claims 11—17
The Examiner observes that these claims recite certain “means for”
limitations that require a containment cooling pool to perform the recited
function. Final Action 4. The Examiner takes the position that a
containment cooling pool is not positively recited as a portion of the claimed
invention and, therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the “means
for” claims. Final Action 4.
Appellants argue that “a containment cooling pool” is recited in the
preamble of claim 1 and that such is sufficient antecedent basis for “the
containment cooling pool” recited in the body of the claim. Appeal Br. 21.
In response, the Examiner maintains the position that claim 11 does not
positively recite a cooling pool as a portion of the apparatus. Ans. 5.
According to the Examiner, a recitation in a preamble merely discloses an
intended use. Id.
As we understand the Examiner’s rejection, an initial recital cannot
provide antecedent basis for a subsequent recital unless the first recital is
stated as a positively recited limitation in the claim. The Board addressed a
similar issue in the case of Ex Parte Chalon, Slip Op. 2009-005318, 2009
WL 3748600 (BPAI Nov. 9, 2009), and resolved the issue in favor of the
patent applicant.
3
Appeal 2016-007628
Application 13/425,776
The recitation of “a user profile” in the preamble is sufficient to
provide an antecedent basis for the recitation of “the user
profile” in limitation (b). The recitation of “a user profile” in
the preamble renders the subsequent recitation of “the user
profile” clear and definite.
Id. at * 4. Similarly, Appellants’ recital of “a containment cooling pool” in
the preamble of claim 11 provides sufficient antecedent basis for Appellants’
recital of “the containment cooling pool” in the body of the claim, thereby
rendering the claim sufficiently clear and definite.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s Section 112, second paragraph,
indefmiteness rejection of claims 11—17.
Anticipation by Hattori
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Hattori discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1. Final Action 5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hattori has a
containment vessel that is at least partially submerged in a containment
cooling pool. Id.
Appellants traverse the rejection by arguing, among other things, that
Hattori fails to disclose a containment vessel that is at least partially
submerged in a containment cooling pool as claimed. Appeal Br. 13.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection relies on Hattori’s outer
vessel 7 as the claimed containment cooling pool and then additionally relies
on outer vessel 7 as being “submerged” in coolant that is contained within
outer vessel 7. Id. In other words, Appellants draw attention to the
seemingly anomalous assertion that a vessel can be submerged in itself. Id.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that the “inner walls” of
containment vessel 7 are submerged as claimed. Ans. 3. According to the
4
Appeal 2016-007628
Application 13/425,776
Examiner, the claim does not require the “outer walls” of the vessel to be
submerged. Id. The Examiner takes the position that claim 1 only requires
partial submersion and does not specify which part of the vessel must be
submerged to satisfy the claim. According to the Examiner, submerging the
“inner walls” of the vessel is sufficient to satisfy the claim. Id.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under
the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, a construction that is
“unreasonably broad” and which does not “reasonably reflect the plain
language and disclosure” will not pass muster. Microsoft Corp. v.
Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
If we were to adopt the Examiner’s position, we would have to
contemplate that every vessel that contains liquid is at least “partially
submerged” in itself. Such does not comport with the ordinary and
customary meaning of the word “submerge.”
Using the ordinary and customary meaning of “submerge,” Hattori’s
outer vessel 7 cannot be partially submerged in itself. The Examiner’s
overly broad construction of partially submerged results in reversible error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 1.
5
Appeal 2016-007628
Application 13/425,776
Claims 3—6, 8, 9, 11—14, 16, 21, 22, and 24—26
Claims 3—6, 8, 9, 11—14, 16, 21, 22, and 24—26 each have a limitation
directed a containment vessel being at least partially submerged in a
containment cooling pool. Claims App. As such, the rejections of these
claims suffer from the same infirmity that we have identified above with
respect to claim 1. For the same reasons articulated above with respect to
claim 1, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 3—6, 8, 9, 11—
14, 16, 21, 22, and 24—26.
Unpatentability of Claims 10, 17, and 23
by Hattori and Germer
The Examiner’s reliance on Germer as a secondary reference does not
cure the deficiency in Hattori that we have identified above with respect to
the rejection of claim 1. Thus, the rejections of these claims suffer from the
same infirmity as the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the unpatentability rejection of these claims.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—6, 8—14, 16, 17,
and 21-26 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6