COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS: INSTRUMENT RACK STRUCTURE
The sole reference relied on does not show detachable mounting plates which are
each mounted to both the permanent plate between the upright frame members as well
as to the frame members.
Final Action - Withdrawn
This decision deals with Applicant's request that the Commissioner of
Patents review the Examiner's Final Action of January 4, 1984 on
application No. 370,403 (Class 347-32). The application was filed February
9, 1981 by Combusion Engineering Inc. and is entitled Instrument Rack for
Nuclear Power Station. The inventors are Niranjan R. Bhatt and Dana C.
Chase. The examiner in charge refused the application. After studying the
applicant's response to the art applied in the Final Action, we believe the
evidence on file is sufficient for a review of the case without conducting
a Hearing at this time. The Applicant was informed that the request for a
Hearing on this application was not necessary.
This application relates to a framework for supporting transmitters or
transducers in a nuclear power station. It is designed to withstand huge
physical shocks that are anticipated in this environment. Figures 1 and 2
are illustrative of the application.
<IMG>
Side plates 6 and 7 are welded to the frame members 1, 2, 4 and 5.
Vertical members 1 and 2 are further joined together by plates 12, 13
and 27 which have stiffening ribs 31 and 33 thereon. Removable plates
25, 26 to which the transducer or transmitter is attached are bolted to
stiffening rib 31 as well as vertical members 1 and 2.
In the Final Action the Examiner refused the application in view of the
following patent:
Canadian Patent 763,564 July 18, 1967 Poesl
Poesl describes electrical test apparatus for use in laboratories. It
consists of a castor mounted base member having a pair of side frame members
which are attached to an upper rectangular frame member. Figure 1 is shown
below:
<IMG>
Base 14 mounted on castors 16 carries frame members 20 and 21 joined at
the upper edge by rectangular member 22. Panel 13 has various gauges and
connectors thereon.
The Final Action stated (in part):
...
Claims 1 to 5 are not patentably distinguished in view of the
Poesl patent which shows a mechanical framework for the support
of instrumentalities.
The applicant's frame construction does not perform any new or
inventive features over teachings of the Poesl's patent and
is directed to mere design matter of one skilled in the art.
Forming frames, by bolting or welding of structural elements
and plates and reinforcing them by ribs, using different
materials is well-known in the art.
The applicant's alleged invention is directed to a workshop
improvement and does not involve the exercise of the inventive fac-
ulty essentially required for the grant of a monopoly. Merely
using a different material like stainless steel and meeting the
requirements of codes and standards, and then locating such a
construction in a nuclear power plant does not mean that such
a construction is an invention.
...
In response to the Final Action the Applicant stated (in part):
...
The Examiner, in the March 11 Final Action, uses the Poesl patent
as a starting point and simply concludes, without indicating how
he arrives at the conclusion, that the invention disclosed and
claimed in the subject application is obvious, notwithstanding
that the invention as disclosed and claimed in the subject applica-
tion contains many features (as noted above) which are neither
disclosed or suggested in the Poesl patent, that the Poesl inven-
tion was directed to an entirely different problem than that
faced by the present applicant, a problem which had to be solved
in an entirely different manner, and that the structure disclosed
in the Poesl specification would be quite inappropriate for use
in nuclear installations, which is what the subject application
is directed to. The Examiner indicates that forming frames by
bolting or welding of structural elements and plates and
reinforcing them by ribs using different materials is well known
in the art. The Examiner cites nothing in support of this contention
except the Poesl patent, although even if true, the Examiner has
over-simplified the invention defined in the claims of the subject
application, and has apparently completely failed to appreciate
the problem faced by the inventor which was that of providing the
flexibility required to alter, add, or change arrangements of
instrumentalities in a nuclear power installation while still
retaining the strength and ridigity of structure required for
such installations. Applicant's invention does not reside in the
use of welds or bolts to connect frame members, nor indeed in the
selection of stainless steel as structural material. Applicant's
invention resides in the overall combination defined broadly in
claim 1 of the application, although none of the Examiner's com-
ments are directed specifically to this arrangement (which is
discussed in some detail above), and the reference cited by the
Examiner discloses none of the important features of the claimed
combination which are discussed at some length in the specification
of this application.
As noted in the previous response dated January 4, 1983, with
reference to the recent, and as yet unreported decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada in Shell Oil Company v. The Commissioner
of Patents, an idea may well have patentable merit even though, once
the idea is known, there is no difficulty whatsoever in putting it
into a practical or useable form. This is simply another means
of observing, as has been so frequently observed, that many invent-
ions appear simple when viewed in hindsight. However, the inventive
ingenuity required of the present applicant appears no less than
that required of the inventor in the Poesl patent, and, having
regard to the complete failure of the disclosure of the Poesl patent
to anticipate or suggest the novel features of the subject application,
it is not understood why the Examiner in this case takes the position
that applicant's invention lacks patentable merit. It is worth
observing that the problems of safety in nuclear power installations
have been the subject of considerable concern for many years and the
Poesl patent issued some sixteen years ago (and some thirteen years
prior to the priority date of the subject application), although
the teachings of Poesl did not previously enable anyone previously to
create the useful invention disclosed in the subject application.
. . .
The consideration before the Board is whether or not there is a patentable ad-
vance in the art. Claim 1 reads:
A mechanical framework for the support of a plurality of discrete
instrumentalities at a selected location in a nuclear power install-
ation, the framework having a successful resistance to seismic
forces and environmental conditions resulting from coolant escape,
including,
a first pair of parallel stainless steel structural members,
a plurality of stainless steel plates permanently welded between
the first pair of structural members to form a rectangular rack,
means for permanently mounting the first pair of parallel structural
members in a substantially vertical position,
a detachable stainless steel plate adapted to be rigidly mounted on
each of a selected one of the plurality of stainless steel plates
which are permanently welded to the first pair of structural members,
and on said first pair of structural members,
means for detachably mounting the detachable stainless steel plate
to its permanent stainless steel plate and to said first pair of
structural members,
conduits and auxiliary instrumentalities arranged on and attached to
the permanent plates for extension to connection with instrumentalities
mounted on the detachable plates,
and instrumentalities mounted on the detachable plates and adapted
to be connected to the conduits mounted on the permanent plates.
It is the Examiner's position that the applicant's frame construction does
not perform any new or inventive features over Poesl and is merely design
matter of one skilled in the art. On the other hand the applicant argues
that his structure provides a mechanical framework which is capable of
resistance to seismic forces and shocks as required by relevant regulatory
agencies and various codes and standards for the nuclear power industry.
This is accomplished by providing a mechanical framework that meets the
strength, rigidity and immobility requirements of the industry and yet
provides a degree of flexibility to permit the rearrangement of transducers
and transmitters as the need arises after installation.
Poesl shows a framework structure consisting of a base with a pair of
parallel members extending and attached, to an upper rectangularly shaped
frame member. Castors are attached to the base member to provide portability
to the unit. This portable test unit carries various electrical test
components that are mounted on the framework structure. One of the
objectives stated in the Poesl patent is to have "a transportable carriage
which may be detachably connected to an adjacent similar carriage having
mounted thereon a similar electrical device and including means whereby the
electrical rotating devices on the two adjacent carriages may be readily
detachably connected in driving and driven relationship". Figures 2 to 5
of the patent show and detail the coupling arrangement for two carriages.
According to the applicant his provision of detachable mounting plates on
the framework which are securely connected to permanent mounted plates
and the frame members provide strength and rigidity required of nuclear
power installations. While acknowledging that Poesl is superficially similar
to the applicants frame structure, he maintains that Poesl contains no structural
details of the superstructure. He argues that Poesl is not concerned
with the strength of the mechanical framework nor with the provision of
detachable instrument panels as required for use in a nuclear power plant.
While the framework shown in the citation may appear to be similar to
figure 1 of the application, we are unable to find any description in Poesl
relating to the structural aspects of the upper framework. We particularly
note that the applicant has detachable mounting plates, each mounted to
both the permanent plate between the upright frame members as well as to
the frame members. Consequently we see that the applicant's structure
represents details that are not dealt with by the Poesl citation.
Accordingly we are unable to find that the applicant's structure is present
in the sole reference relied on and we recommend withdrawal of the Final
Action refusing the application in view of that citation. Moreover we
recommend that the application be returned for consideration of the
patentability of the details not found in the citation.
M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Acting Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings and recommendations of the Patent Appeal Board.
Accordingly I withdraw the Final Action and remand the application to the
Examiner for further prosecution.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 22 day of April 1986
Smart & Biggar
Box 299, Station D
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5Y6