Ex Parte Hamlin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 11, 2010

11442021 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2010)

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.
11/442,021 05/25/2006 Gregg R. Hamlin 1400B-000040/US 9854
27572 7590 08/11/2010
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
EXAMINER
PAPE, ZACHARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GREGG R. HAMLIN
____________

Appeal 2010-000240
Application 11/442,021
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-000240
Application 11/442,021

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-26. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002). We affirm.
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows:
1. An embedded computer chassis, comprising:
a midplane having a first side and second side substantially opposite
each other, wherein the midplane is suitably adapted to receive at least one
computer card in each of the first side and the second side; and
a cooling region suitably adapted to cool the at least one computer
card, wherein at least a portion of the cooling region is suitably adapted to
receive a first fan tray and a second fan tray, wherein the first fan tray is
suitably adapted to couple to the first side of the midplane, wherein the
second fan tray is suitably adapted to couple to the second side of the
midplane, and wherein the first fan tray and the second fan tray are
substantially redundant for removing the heat generated by the at least one
computer card.

The Rejections
Claims 1-21 and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as
being unpatentable over Smith (US 2003/0223199 A1; December 4, 2003).
See Ans. 3-5.
Claims 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
unpatentable over Smith and Lu (US 6,604,916 B2; August 12, 2003). See
Ans. 6.
Rather than repeat Appellant’s arguments or the Examiner’s positions
in their entirety, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 16, 2009), the
Reply Brief (filed August 25, 2009), and the Answer (mailed June 25, 2009)
for their respective details. In this decision, we have considered only those
arguments actually made by Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could
Appeal 2010-000240
Application 11/442,021

3
have made but did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).

ISSUE
Does Smith’s use of a power distribution unit (PDU) fail to disclose a
midplane as claimed by Appellant?
Does Smith’s silence in regard to the use of substantially redundant
fan trays fail to disclose the invention as claimed by Appellant?

FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. Figure 10 of Smith is reproduced below:
Appeal 2010-000240
Application 11/442,021

4

Smith discloses a rack mounted system or computer chassis having a power
distribution unit 29 and multiple fan trays 27 (Smith [0053], [0058]).
2. Figure 17 of Smith is reproduced below:
Appeal 2010-000240
Application 11/442,021

5

Smith discloses a power distribution unit 29 (Smith [0064]).
3. Smith discloses internal wiring leads (not shown) from each LAN
connector port 45 extending to one of the two signal connectors 47 in back
of the fan/LAN tray 27 (Smith [0057]).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the power distribution unit of Smith does not
carry signals as asserted by the Examiner (App. Br. 7). Appellant also
argues that
[a]s acknowledged by the Examiner, a “midplane” must
provide something more than just a power line. Since PDU 29
only provides power to the components of the computer system
of Smith, as discussed above, Appellant respectfully submits
the “PDU 29” is not a “midplane” as provided for by the
claims.
See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2. However, the Examiner relies upon Smith’s
signal lines 47 in combination with the PDU 29. See Ans. 3, 7; see also FF
1-3.
Claim 1 merely states “wherein the first fan tray is suitably adapted to
couple to the first side of the midplane, wherein the second fan tray is
suitably adapted to couple to the second side of the midplane.” The
Appeal 2010-000240
Application 11/442,021

6
language of claim 1 is broad and there is no signal requirement claimed;
therefore, it is not necessary for Smith’s PDU to provide signals in order for
the claimed midplane to read upon Smith’s PDU 29. Further, Appellant’s
Specification states, for example, the “[m]idplane 104 may include hardware
and software necessary to implement a data network.” See Specification
[0013]. Although giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
must take into account any definitions given in the Specification, In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read into the
claims limitations from examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893
F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appellant’s arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims and therefore we do not find
them persuasive.
Appellant further argues that the fan trays of Smith work together to
properly cool the computer system and are therefore in contrast to the
present invention’s fan trays, which may operate independently to cool the
entire cooling region. See App. Br. 9. Claim 1 merely states, “the first fan
tray and the second fan tray are substantially redundant for removing the
heat generated by the at least one computer card.” As the Examiner has
asserted, Smith employs multiple fan trays as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3-
4; see also FF 1. Claim 1 does not require the fan trays to act independently,
as Appellant has argued, and therefore we do not find Appellant’s arguments
to be persuasive because they are not commensurate with the claim.
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as
well as independent claims 7, 14, and 21 and dependent claims 2-6, 8-13,
15-20, and 23-25 for the same reasons as stated above since they were not
separately argued. We will also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
Appeal 2010-000240
Application 11/442,021

7
rejections of claims 22 and 26 for the same reasons as stated above since
Appellant argues that claims 22 and 26 rely upon the patentability of
independent claim 21. See App. Br. 10.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-21
and 23-25 as anticipated by Smith.
We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 22
and 26 as obvious over Smith and Lu.

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

babc

HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303