Barry Rimler et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2020

11251587 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
11/251,587 10/14/2005 Barry Rimler A2000-703010(APC-0030) 5326
37462 7590 03/27/2020
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
60 STATE STREET, 23RD FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02109
EXAMINER
BLANKENSHIP, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2020 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):
CKent@LALaw.com
docketing@LALaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BARRY RIMLER and NEIL RASMUSSEN
____________________

Appeal 2018-004300
Application 11/251,587
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JAMES A. WORTH, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-004300
Application 11/251,587

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action, rejecting claims
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10–14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 29–32.3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a mobile data center. Claims 1, 11, and 17
are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A mobile data center comprising:
a trailer having a length greater than a width and having
an interior, the trailer being configured to be transported in a
direction generally parallel to the length;
a plurality of equipment enclosures installed in the interior
of the trailer to form a single row, with the row being parallel to
the length of the trailer, wherein the row is positioned in the
interior such that a first aisle is on a front side of the row and a
second aisle is on a back side of the row, with the first aisle
extending from a first side wall of the trailer to the single row,
and the second aisle extending from a second side wall of the
trailer to the single row, the first aisle and the second aisle each
having a width sufficient to enable an operator to access

1 In this Decision, we refer to (1) the Examiner’s Final Office Action
dated July 12, 2017 (“Final Act.”) and Answer dated February 8, 2018
(“Ans.”), and (2) Appellant’s Appeal Brief dated December 5, 2017
(“Appeal Br.”) and Reply Brief dated March 16, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Schneider
Electric IT Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 15, 18, 20, 23, and 25–28 are cancelled. Appeal Br.
13–18 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2018-004300
Application 11/251,587

3

equipment in the plurality of equipment enclosures, and wherein
each of the plurality of equipment enclosures includes equipment
configured to draw air directly from the first aisle and return air
directly to the second aisle, the first aisle constituting a cold aisle
and the second aisle constituting a hot aisle, the plurality of
equipment enclosures includes a first group of enclosures and a
second group of enclosures with the at least one cooling unit
disposed in the row between the first group of enclosures and the
second group of enclosures;
at least one cooling unit constructed and arranged to draw
air directly from the second aisle and provide air directly to the
first aisle;
a first uninterruptible power supply disposed adjacent the
first group of enclosures and a second uninterruptible power
supply disposed adjacent the second group of enclosures;
a generator for generating electrical power, wherein the
generator is electrically coupled to the first uninterruptible power
supply and the second uninterruptible power supply; and
a transfer switch electrically coupled to the generator, the
first uninterruptible power supply and the second uninterruptible
power supply and having an input to couple to a utility source of
power, and wherein the transfer switch is configured to provide
power from one of the generator and the utility source to the first
uninterruptible power supply and the second uninterruptible
power supply.

REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Yoo
Bortell
Chu
Fink
Rasmussen
US 6,394,523 B1
US 6,783,164 B2
US 6,819,563 B1
US 6,859,366 B2
US 2002/0134567 A1
May 28, 2002
Aug. 31, 2004
Nov. 16, 2004
Feb. 22, 2005
Sept. 26, 2002

Appeal 2018-004300
Application 11/251,587

4

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6, 10–13, 17, 21, 24, and 32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bortell, Fink, Chu, and
Rasmussen.
2. Claims 4, 7, 14, 16, 19, 22, and 29–31 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bortell, Fink, Chu, Rasmussen,
and Yoo.
Appellant seeks our review of these rejections.

DISCUSSION
Rejection 1: Claims 1, 2, 6, 10–13, 17, 21, 24, and 32
as Unpatentable Over Bortell, Fink, Chu, and Rasmussen
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 6, 10–13, 17, 21, 24, and 32 as a group.
Appeal Br. 8–10. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim,
and claims 2, 6, 10–13, 17, 21, 24, and 32 stand or fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Bortell, Fink, Chu,
and Rasmussen disclose the limitations in claim 1. More particularly, the
Examiner finds that Bortell does not disclose “a single row of two groups of
equipment enclosures drawing cool air directly from the first aisle and
returning air directly to the second aisle” and “the cooling unit drawing air
directly from the second aisle and providing air directly to the first aisle
where the cooling unit is located between the two groups of equipment
enclosures.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Chu and Fink for
disclosure of these missing limitations. Id. at 3‒4. The Examiner finds that
Appeal 2018-004300
Application 11/251,587

5

Fink discloses “a data center cooling system with a plurality of equipment
enclosures (18) that each draw air directly from a first aisle and return air to
a second aisle (22) from which the cooling unit directly draws air before
providing air directly to the first aisle, as shown in Figures 2 and 3.” Id. at 3.
The Examiner finds that Chu discloses “arranging a plurality of equipment
racks into a single row, as disclosed on lines 22‒26 of column 6.” Id. at 4.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to
arrang[e] the equipment enclosures of Bortell into a single row
of equipment racks, as taught by Chu et al. . . . to provide an
alternative layout as miniaturization of electronics allows for the
same functions to be performed while using less equipment
racks;
arrang[e] the equipment enclosures and air conditioning unit of
Bortell in a single line where the air conditioning unit is located
between two groups of equipment enclosures, as taught by Fink,
to locate the air conditioning system in a location that is easily
accessible from inside the trailer while still providing ample
cooling;
and
configure each of the equipment enclosures of Bortell to draw air
directly from the first aisle and return air directly to the second
aisle, as taught by Fink, while the cooling unit of Bortell draws
air directly from the second aisle and providing air directly to the
first aisle, as taught by Fink, to cool the equipment in a more
efficient and less expensive manner.
Appeal 2018-004300
Application 11/251,587

6

Id. at 4–5.4
In addition, the Examiner finds that Bortell does not disclose a
transfer switch electrically coupled to the generator, the first uninterruptible
power supply and the second uninterruptible power supply and having an
input to couple to a utility source of power, and wherein the transfer switch
is configured to provide power from one of the generator and the utility
source to the first uninterruptible power supply and the second
uninterruptible power supply. Id. at 5. The Examiner relies on Rasmussen
to disclose this limitation. Id. The Examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide:
a transfer switch connected to a utility source of power, the
generator of Bortell, and at least two uninterruptible power
supplies adjacent to the groups of enclosures to allow switching
between the utility source and generator to supply power to the
uninterruptible power supplies, as taught by Rasmussen et al., to
allow easy switching between the power from the utility when
available and the generator when the utility isn't available to
minimize fuel use by the generator.
Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous for several
reasons. First, Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 10‒13,
17, 21, 24, and 32 uses impermissible hindsight to combine the references
and the Examiner “has cobbled together bits and pieces from the various

4 The Examiner’s findings as to the scope and content of Bortell, Chu,
and Fink and reasons to combine the teachings in the manner claimed are
substantially similar to the statement of rejection in a previous Office action,
which the Board affirmed in Appeal 2014-004439 (PTAB June 23, 2016).
Appellant subsequently reopened prosecution to amend the claims, and the
Examiner added Rasmussen to the rejection to address the added claim
limitations.
Appeal 2018-004300
Application 11/251,587

7

references (up to five in total) in such a manner that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine these references
at the time of Appellant's invention in the manner suggested by the
Examiner.” Appeal Br. 8; see Reply Br. 1. The criterion for obviousness,
however, “is not the number of references, but what they would have meant
to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.” In re Gorman,
933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Appellant’s conclusory argument does
not show how the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining the
references lacks rational underpinnings or how the Examiner erred in
making the proposed combination. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Second, Appellant argues that the rejection is erroneous because
“Bortell is nearly completely silent about cooling equipment” and “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Bortell
with the teachings of Fink” because it would not be clear “where to place
Fink's cooling units (16) within and among Bortell’s satellite
communication-related electronic components (110).” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant argues that Bortell’s discussion of space constraints would lead a
person of ordinary skill in the art away from making the Examiner’s
proposed combination. Id. at 8–9.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner persuasively
explains that the proposed combination set forth in the rejection avoids
Bortell’s space-constraint problem because the combination results in a
single row of equipment enclosures instead of Bortell’s two parallel rows of
equipment enclosures. Ans. 4. The Examiner also explains that this
configuration allows one of ordinary skill in the art to place the cooling units
with the equipment enclosures and Fink teaches a method to cool equipment
Appeal 2018-004300
Application 11/251,587

8

enclosures that prevents hot spots from developing due to poor recirculation
of exhaust air from racks to the return side of a room air conditioner. Id.
(citing Fink 2:59–3:5). Fink, for example, discloses that “[a]ir from the
room . . . filters through the front of the racks 18 to cool the equipment
stored in the racks 18. Air enters through the front of the racks 18 and is
expelled out of the backside of the racks 18.” Fink, 8:27–30. As recited in
claim 1, Fink discloses that “cooling unit 16 draws warm air from the hot
room and returns cool air to the room outside the data center 10,” and the
“warm air enters the cooling units 16 directly from the hot room 22.” Id. at
8:34–37. According to the Examiner, “[c]ombining Fink and Bortell will
produce an effective and efficient air conditioning system that avoids hot
spots, air circulation problems, and expensive humidification systems.”
Ans. 4. Appellant does not address this reasoning by the Examiner or
explain why the Examiner’s reasoning is erroneous.
Third, Appellant argues that “it is not clear that Bortell and Fink can
be combined since the satellite equipment in Bortell may not work with the
cooling arrangement of Fink,” that “combining Fink and Bortell would not
have been a predictable modification,” and that the combination would
“change the principle of operation established in Bortell.” Appeal Br. 9; see
Reply Br. 2. We do not agree.
The Examiner persuasively explains that the proposed combination
does not alter Bortell’s principle of operation because Bortell is directed to
expanding the trailer to provide room for an operator to access equipment.
Ans. 4. Modifying Bortell to permit cool air to pass through the electronic
equipment to cool the equipment, as taught by Fink, does not affect the
ability of Bortell to expand the interior size of the trailer. See Fink, 8:27–30.
Appeal 2018-004300
Application 11/251,587

9

Finally, Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been “motivated to combine the teachings of Rasmussen with the
satellite communication trailer of Bortell . . . to arrive at claim 1 [because]
the addition of Rasmussen to Bartell would not have been a predictable
modification,” and it would “improperly change the principle of operation
established in Bortell.” Appeal Br. 10. We do not agree.
Both Bortell and Rasmussen are directed to facilities for housing
electronic equipment. Bortell, 1:13–17; Rasmussen ¶ 1. Rasmussen also
teaches the desirability of continuously operating such equipment seven days
a week, 24 hours per day, by using a transfer switch to switch between a
generator, like the one disclosed by Bortell, and an outside power source.
See, e.g., Rasmussen, ¶¶ 3, 35. Appellant does not identify error in the
Examiner’s reasoning that “[c]ombining [] Rasmussen with the other
references provides the trailer of Bortell with the additional ability of a
switch to use the generator and an additional power source to allow
continuous operation of the electronic equipment while allowing the
operator to use electricity from a local electric utility instead of the
generator, when available, to reduce operating costs, noise, and pollution
associated with running a generator.” Ans. 5. Appellant does not explain
persuasively why using Rasmussen’s transfer switch alters Bortell’s
principle of operation, which we have described above.
For the reasons discussed above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Appellant does not argue claims 2, 6, 10–13, 17, 21, 24, and 32 apart from
claim 1. We discern no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6, 10–
13, 17, 21, 24, and 32, and also sustain the rejection of these claims.
Appeal 2018-004300
Application 11/251,587

10

Rejection 2: Claims 4, 7, 14, 16, 19, 22, and 29–31
as Unpatentable Over Bortell, Fink, Chu, Rasmussen, and Yoo
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 7, 14, 16, 19, 22, and 29–31 as
unpatentable over Bortell, Fink, Chu, Rasmussen, and Yoo. Appellant argue
that these claims are patentable for the same reasons discussed above in
connection with claim 1, and does not allege any other patentable
distinctions for these claims. Appeal Br. 11‒12. Thus, we likewise sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 7, 14, 16, 19, 22, and 29–31 as
unpatentable over Bortell, Fink, Chu, Rasmussen, and Yoo.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis

Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 10–
13, 17, 21,
24, 32
103 Bortell, Fink, Chu,
Rasmussen
1, 2, 6, 10–13,
17, 21, 24, 32

4, 7, 14, 16,
19, 22, 29–
31
103 Bortell, Fink, Chu,
Rasmussen, Yoo
4, 7, 14, 16,
19, 22, 29–31

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 6, 7,
10–14, 16, 17,
19, 21, 22, 24,
29–32

For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6,
7, 10–14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 29–32 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED