AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2020

13779411 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2020)

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