Ex Parte Tournant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2018

13812281 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/812,281 04/08/2013
23280 7590 05/21/2018
Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC
589 8th A venue
16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Audrey Tournant
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.
11000568.1059 9067
EXAMINER
GARNER, LILY CRABTREE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2018 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):
ddk@ddkpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AUDREY TOURNANT, FREDERIC ALAIN MAGRE, and
BENJAMIN LORIOT
Appeal2017-007520
Application 13/812,281
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 11-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, their "invention relates in general to
methods for controlling the positions of nuclear fuel assemblies inside a
nuclear reactor core." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 11 and 22 are the independent
1 According to Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is AREVA NP."
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-007520
Application 13/812,281
claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce claim 11 as illustrative of the
appealed claims.
11. A method for controlling positions of a plurality of
nuclear fuel assemblies in relation to an upper core plate in a
nuclear reactor core, the method comprising of the following
steps:
choosing a reference point in reactor internals or in a
reactor vessel;
determining positions of S shaped holes of the nuclear fuel
assemblies relative to the reference point, each S shaped hole
being intended to cooperate with a corresponding centering pin
of the upper core plate;
acquiring positions of the centering pins of the upper core
plate relative to the reference point;
comparing the positions of the S shaped holes and the
positions of the centering pins and deducing therefrom whether
the nuclear fuel assemblies are correctly positioned in relation to
the upper core plate.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 11-22 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zachar et al. (US 5,887,041, iss. Mar. 23, 1999)
(hereinafter "Zachar").
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 11 recites, in relevant part,
choosing a reference point in reactor internals or in a
reactor vessel;
determining positions of S shaped holes of the nuclear fuel
assemblies relative to the reference point ... ;
2
Appeal2017-007520
Application 13/812,281
acquiring positions of the centering pins of the upper core
plate relative to the reference point; [and]
comparing the positions of the S shaped holes and the
positions of the centering pins.
Appeal Br., Claims App. Restated, claim 11 requires comparing hole
positions determined relative to a reference point, with pin positions
determined relative to the same reference point. Appellants argue that the
rejection is in error because Zachar neither discloses nor renders obvious the
claimed comparison. Appeal Br. 6-12. Based on our review, we determine
that the Examiner does not establish that Zachar discloses or renders obvious
the claimed comparison.
Specifically, it is not clear from the Final Office Action where Zachar
discloses determining hole and pin positions relative to the same reference
point. See Final Office Action mailed Mar. 24, 2016 ("Final Action"), 4.
For example, with reference to Zachar's Figure 2, the Examiner relies on
Zachar's reference location 56, point (0, 0), to disclose the claimed reference
point. Id. With respect to the claim's recitation of "acquiring positions of
the centering pins" (Appeal Br., Claims App.), the Examiner cites Zachar's
disclosure that "[g]ap alignment verification is performed in module 52 by
comparing the gap measurements of module 50 to specified tolerances
obtained from ... database 40 over interface 52A for verification," col. 5,
11. 18-21." Final Action 4. Nonetheless, it is not clear that this describes
determining pin positions relative to Zachar's reference location 56
(point (0, 0)). Instead, it appears that Appellants are correct that this portion
of Zachar describes determining gaps between fuel assemblies. See Appeal
Br. 7.
3
Appeal2017-007520
Application 13/812,281
The Examiner's Answer also does not provide a clear explanation
where Zachar discloses determining hole and pin positions relative to the
same reference point. See Answer 3-5. The Answer refers to reference
numeral 56 and point (0, 0) (id. at 3), and discusses alignment of pins and
holes (id. at 3-5), but the Answer does not support adequately that such
alignment occurs after comparing hole positions determined relative to a
reference point, with pin positions determined relative to the same reference
point.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 11, or of claims 12-21 that depend from claim 11. We
also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 22, which
includes similar recitations, and which the Examiner rejects for similar
reasons, as independent claim 11. See Appeal Br., Claims App.; see Final
Action 4--5, 9-11.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 11-22.
REVERSED
4