On steam in a boiling water nuclear reactor

Ex parte Moen discusses rejections made against a claim directed to

A system for controlling the power level of a
natural circulation boiling water nuclear reactor (NCBWR),
said system comprising

The appellants did not do well:

Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings or
determination of obviousness or explained how the Examiner’s observations
about Collett’s pressure sensor undermines the Examiner’s findings and
determination of obviousness as set forth in the Answer. We sustain the
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 23.

As to claims 18-22:

Regarding claim 18, the Examiner found that Chaki teaches a system
for controlling the power level of a BWR except for teaching that the flow of
steam into the feedwater heater has not passed through a turbine. Ans. 8-9.
The Examiner found that Collett feeds steam into a feedwater heater 68 from
a steam heater without passing through a turbine 5, 6 and determined that it
would have been obvious to include such a bypass line in Chaki to facilitate
bypass of the turbine during failure. Ans. 9.

The appellants argued that Chaki and Collett were not combinable, BUT

These arguments do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s finding and determination of obviousness as set forth
in the Answer. It is not necessary that inventions of references be physically
combinable to render obvious the invention under review. See In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted); see also Ans. 19
(citation omitted). The Examiner’s reason for including Collett’s bypass on
Chaki is supported by a rational underpinning of facilitating bypass of the
turbine during failure and Appellants have not persuaded us of error in that
determination or explained why the alleged different manner of operation of
Collett and Chaki undermines the Examiner’s findings or determination of
obviousness. We sustain the rejection of claims 18-22.