AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 21, 20202019005673 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/779,411 02/27/2013 BROCK ROBERT GARDNER 5924-47900 7019 35690 7590 05/21/2020 KOWERT, HOOD, MUNYON, RANKIN & GOETZEL, P.C. P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398 EXAMINER VALVIS, ALEXANDER M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3752 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/21/2020 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BROCK ROBERT GARDNER and MICHAEL PHILLIP CZAMARA ____________ Appeal 2019-005673 Application 13/779,411 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1–7, 9–21, 26, and 27.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Amazon Technologies, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claim 8 is indicated as allowable. Final Act. 10. Claims 22–25 are canceled. Appeal 2019-005673 Application 13/779,411 2 THE INVENTION The claimed subject matter relates to “[s]ystems and methods for protecting electrical systems operating in a data center, from environmental conditions” (Spec. para. 12). Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 1. A data center, comprising: a raised floor comprising one or more frame members and a plurality of tiles coupled to the one or more frame members; one or more rack computing systems coupled to at least one of the one or more the tiles; a sub-floor space below the raised floor; one or more data center infrastructure components in the sub-floor space configured to supply electrical power or cooling air to computing devices in at least one of the one or more rack computing systems; and one or more fire suppression devices mounted to at least one of the one or more tiles, wherein at least one of the one or more fire suppression devices includes a reservoir in the subfloor space and wherein the at least one of the one or more fire suppression devices is configured to dispense under pressure, from the reservoir, fire suppression material within the subfloor space to at least one of the one or more data center infrastructure components, wherein the reservoir is configured to be pressurized such that the fire suppression material is dispensed under pressure. Appeal 2019-005673 Application 13/779,411 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Mori JP 07044002U Oct. 24, 1995 Inamura JP H08-066487 Mar. 12, 1996 Richardson US 2010/0170684 A1 July 8, 2010 Day US 2011/0105010 A1 May 5, 2011 Dunster US 2013/0098638 A1 Apr. 25, 2013 THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 5, 6, 11–16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inamura and Richardson.3 2. Claims 2, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inamura, Richardson, and Mori. 3. Claims 4, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inamura, Richardson, and Day. 4. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inamura, Richardson, Mori, and Day. 5. Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inamura, Richardson, and Dunster. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 11–16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inamura and Richardson. Claims 1 and 5 are the independent claims. Claim 1 recites a data 3 Although claim 16 was not listed in the heading of the rejection, claim 16 is rejected as unpatentable over Inamura and Richardson. Final Act. 6. Appeal 2019-005673 Application 13/779,411 4 center comprising one or more fire suppression devices that includes “a reservoir in the subfloor space” and “wherein the reservoir is configured to be pressurized such that the fire suppression material is dispensed under pressure.” Claim 5 contains similar limitations. The Examiner’s position is that Inamura discloses substantially all of the limitations of claim 1, including a subfloor and a pressurized reservoir above the subfloor, but the Examiner acknowledges that “Inamura fails to disclose wherein at least one of the one or more fire suppression devices includes a reservoir in the subfloor space” (Final Act. 4). The Examiner relies on Richardson as disclosing “a data center with a fire suppression system wherein the at least one or more fire suppression devices includes a reservoir in the subfloor space” and “the benefit of placing the fire protection device in the subfloor space so as to provide fire protection in those spaces as a recognized potential risk of fire in computer rooms (i.e. data centers)” (id. (citing Richardson paragraphs 127–128)). The Examiner determines: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rearrange the placement of the reservoir and overall fire suppression device to the subfloor space, as taught by Richardson, to the system of Inamura, the motivation being that placing of the system in the subfloor space would have yielded a predictable result, namely, the ability to store and dispense the fire suppressant device in and from a known space in the system. Further, this would provide the added benefit of allowing for more room above the sub- floor to allow for more equipment to be stored there. (id. at 4–5). Appeal 2019-005673 Application 13/779,411 5 Appellant disagrees, arguing with respect to claim 1 that “Richardson teaches away from use of pressurized tanks.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing paragraphs 42, 47, 110, and 111). Responding to Appellant’s arguments in the Answer (Ans. 4), the Examiner states that “there is no teaching away of using pressurized material as taught by Inamura in Richardson particularly in a subfloor.” According to the Examiner, “Richardson teaches its own type of extinguishant everywhere including the subfloor space,” and “[t]here is no requirement for specifically the subfloor space to be unpressurized” (id.). For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant points to additional disclosure in Richardson as evidence that Richardson teaches away from a pressurized reservoir, including paragraphs 6 and 11 of Richardson (Reply Br. 5). When the prior art teaches away from a combination, that combination is more likely to be nonobvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). To teach away, a reference must discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from following the path set out in the reference, or lead that person in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the references, particularly the cited portions of Richardson, and we agree with Appellant that Richardson discourages the use of a pressurized reservoir as called for in claim 1. Inamura discloses an inert gas fire suppression system using a high- pressure cylinder of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the inert gas. See, e.g., Inamura para. 13 (“CO 2, which is an inert gas for extinguishing the fire”); Appeal 2019-005673 Application 13/779,411 6 id. para. 7 (“the CO 2 discharged from the gas injection nozzle has too high a speed of outflow”). Richardson disparages high-pressure inert gas systems like Inamura’s. In paragraph 6, Richardson teaches that “[h]igh-pressure bottles require frequent inspection due to their propensity for leaks” and “[o]nce a leak is identified, the leaking bottle may need to be sent to a central re-filling installation, resulting in protection down time at the customer site.” Richardson’s paragraph 11 teaches: Inert gas systems, such as those using nitrogen or argon, require up to ten times the number of bottles of their Halon predecessor (due to their inefficiency and inability to be liquefied under pressure in a practical manner). Such requires not only considerable additional storage space, but often larger diameter plumbing that would need to replace Halon-suitable pipes. The very high pressure bottles used in inert gas systems can also pose an additional safety hazard if damaged or otherwise compromised, including the thicker-walled distribution plumbing that might be vulnerable at any joint connections. To overcome these problems with high-pressure inert gas systems, Richardson discloses “[a] pre-packed solid gas generator for generating a gas mixture from a sodium azide-based chemical that is suitable for suppressing a fire” (Richardson para. 100). By using a solid propellant gas generator, Richardson’s device eliminates the need for pressurized bottles of gas (id. para. 42), as well as the need for personnel with special training and tools for high-pressure equipment (id. para. 45). Although the Examiner correctly points out that Richardson discloses a fire suppression device including a reservoir in a subfloor space of a data center (Final Act. 4), Richardson’s teachings that high-pressure bottles of inert gas systems are prone to leaks, present safety hazards, and require Appeal 2019-005673 Application 13/779,411 7 additional storage space, larger diameter plumbing, and personnel with special training and tools, would have discouraged a person of ordinary skill in the art from the Examiner’s proposed combination involving Inamura’s high-pressure cylinder. For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1 and 5 and claims 6, 11–16, 19, and 20 depending therefrom is not sustained. The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inamura, Richardson, and Mori. The rejection of claims 4, 17, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inamura, Richardson, and Day. The rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inamura, Richardson, Mori, and Day. The rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Inamura, Richardson, and Dunster. With regard to these rejections, the Examiner does not rely on the additional references (Mori, Day, and Dunster) to cure the deficiency discussed above. Thus, the rejections of claims 2–4, 7, 9, 10, 17, 18, 21, 26, and 27 are not sustained for the reasons given above for not sustaining the rejection of independent claims 1 and 5 from which they depend. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 6, 11– 16, 19, 20 103(a) Inamura, Richardson 1, 5, 6, 11– 16, 19, 20 2, 3, 7 103(a) Inamura, Richardson, Mori 2, 3, 7 Appeal 2019-005673 Application 13/779,411 8 4, 17, 18, 21 103(a) Inamura, Richardson, Day 4, 17, 18, 21 9, 10 103(a) Inamura, Richardson, Mori, Day 9, 10 26, 27 103(a) Inamura, Richardson, Dunster 26, 27 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9–21, 26, 27 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation