Ex Parte Heydari et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201612628143 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) 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. 12/628,143 11/30/2009 Ali Heydari 26295-16205 5342 87851 7590 12/27/2016 Faoehnnk/Fen wi ok EXAMINER Silicon Valley Center VAZQUEZ, ANA M 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): ptoc @ fenwick.com fwfacebookpatents @ fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALI HEYDARI, SEUNG HOON PARK, and AMIR MEIR MICHAEL Appeal 2015-003136 Application 12/628,143 Technology Center 3700 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from a final rejection of claims 1—13, 18—24, and 26—32. App. Br. 10-14, Claims App. Claims 14—17 and 25 have been canceled. See Appellants’ Amendment B dated January 9, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-003136 Application 12/628,143 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to data centers, and more particularly to efficient cooling of computing devices within a data center.” Spec. 11. Claims 1,19, and 28 are independent claims. Claims 1 and 281 are illustrative of the claims on appeal and are reproduced below: 1. A data center system comprising: a partition arranged between a cold aisle on a first side of the partition and a hot aisle on a second side of the partition; a plurality of servers arranged in the partition so that each server has an input opening positioned on the first side of the partition in communication with the cold aisle and an output opening on the second side of the partition in communication with the hot aisle, wherein the partition is arranged so that an airflow path of least resistance from the cold aisle to the hot aisle is through the servers, wherein one or more of the plurality of servers further includes a fan internal to the server and an internal fan control system, the internal fan configured to remain off until the internal fan control system identifies an air pressure difference between the input opening and the output opening exceeding a threshold difference; an air supply unit, located external to the plurality of servers, configured to pressurize the cold aisle relative to the hot 1 At page 2 of the Final Action, mailed April 10, 2014, the Examiner objected to certain language of independent claim 28. In particular, the Examiner objected to the recitation “deactivating the internal fan included in the server” at lines 15-16 indicating that the recitation is “believed” to be “deactivating an internal fan included in the server.” The Examiner further objected to claims 29-32 based on their dependency from claim 28 and required that “appropriate correction” be made. Appellants did not subsequently “correct” the objected to language of claim 28 and the Examiner did not further address the issue in the Examiner’s Answer. However, we agree with the Examiner that there is no express antecedent basis for “the internal fan” in claim 28 and that correction is required. 2 Appeal 2015-003136 Application 12/628,143 aisle, so that air flows from the cold aisle to the hot aisle through the servers. 28. A method comprising: operating a plurality of servers, the servers arranged in a partition so that each server has an input opening positioned on a first side of the partition in communication with a cold aisle and an output opening on a second side of the partition in communication with a hot aisle; isolating the cold aisle and the hot aisle using the partition, so that an airflow path of least resistance from the cold aisle to the hot aisle is through the servers; pressurizing the cold aisle relative to the hot aisle using a supply of air external to the servers, so that air flows from the cold aisle to the hot aisle through the servers; monitoring an air pressure difference between the input opening and the output opening of one or more of the plurality of servers; and responsive to the air pressure difference between the input opening and the output opening falling below a threshold difference, deactivating the internal fan included in the server. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Malone US 2006/0168975 A1 Aug. 3, 2006 Dodeja US 2007/0089011 A1 Apr. 19, 2007 Johnson US 2007/0097636 A1 May 3, 2007 Tozer US 2008/0185446 A1 Aug. 7, 2008 Campbell US 2009/0133866 A1 May 28, 2009 Kondo US 2009/0154104 A1 June 18, 2009 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1—5, 7, 8, 11—13, 18—22, 24, 27—30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tozer and Dodeja. 3 Appeal 2015-003136 Application 12/628,143 Claims 6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tozer, Dodeja, and Kondo. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tozer, Dodeja, and Johnson. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tozer, Dodeja, and Campbell. Claims 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tozer, Dodeja, and Malone. ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 19 Independent claim 1 recites a data center system comprising a fan that is “configured to remain off until” an inlet and outlet air pressure difference exceeds a threshold. Similarly, independent claim 19 recites a data center system comprising a fan “remaining off until” a like pressure difference exceeds a threshold. The Examiner acknowledges that Tozer “fails to explicitly disclose” this limitation and instead relies on Dodeja for such teaching. See Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner finds that Dodeja teaches “wherein the paired pressure sensors 112a,b, Fig. 1, measure a differential between fan intake and outtake air pressure that can form the basis of alerts when the pressure is above or below one or more threshold settings.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 13, 14—15; Dodeja 116. Dodeja specifically teaches that “[ajfter receiving one or more alerts, a fan controller may increase the fan speed to maintain air flow levels.” Dodeja 131; see also Final Act. 4. 4 Appeal 2015-003136 Application 12/628,143 In view of Dodeja’s teachings, Appellants’ dispute that the combination of Tozer and Dodeja disclose a fan “configured to remain off’ until a threshold is reached. App. Br. 6. According to Appellants There is no disclosure in Dodeja of the pressure difference turning on the fan that had otherwise “remain[ed] off.” Indeed, Dodeja’s stated purpose is predicting and avoiding fan failures, e.g., due to obstructions and clogged filters, etc., that might cause the fan to turn slower or fail.. . . Thus, Dodeja discloses [] a fan configured to remain on whenever possible. Reply Br. 5—6; see also App. Br. 7 (citing Dodeja 2, 13, 14, 16). Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. Dodeja is directed to a fan controller that receives input from paired pressure sensors 112a,b that measure a pressure differential between fan intake and outtake pressure. See Dodeja Tflf 16, 31. For example, a clogged filter will increase the pressure differential depending on the condition of the filter. Dodeja 116. When the measured pressure differential is above or below threshold settings, alerts are generated. Dodeja 116. As paragraph 31 of Dodeja makes clear, the fan controller may increase the fan speed to maintain air flow levels upon receipt of one or more alerts. According to Dodeja, therefore, the fan is always on, although its speed may be increased based on the occurrence of one or more alerts. Nowhere does Dodeja disclose the fan being or remaining off until the fan control system identifies an air pressure difference between input and output openings that exceed a threshold, as recited in claims 1 and 19. For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record presented, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 19, as well as claims 2—5, 7, 8, 11—13, 18—22, 24, and 27, which depend therefrom. 5 Appeal 2015-003136 Application 12/628,143 Claim 28 Claim 28 differs from claims 1 and 19. Rather than turning on or activating the fan when an air pressure difference is detected, the fan of claim 28 is deactivated or turned off when a pressure difference falls “below a threshold difference.” The Examiner likewise relies on Dodeja for disclosing this limitation. Ans. 14—15. The Examiner finds that Dodeja teaches a “fan capable of remaining off until an air pressure difference is identified.” Ans. 15. The Examiner continues “the claim limitation of ‘deactivating the internal fan’ (claim 28) would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” Ans. 15. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reliance on Dodeja would not be sufficient to show this element, since Dodeja does not disclose or suggest “deactivating the internal fan,” as claimed. Indeed, as discussed above, Dodeja is focused on “maintain[ing] air flow levels.” Dodeja, [0031] (emphasis added). Since Dodeja’s stated purpose is predicting and avoiding fan failures, Dodeja does not disclose “deactivating” the fan under any circumstances. Reply Br. 9. Appellants’ argument is persuasive. The Examiner does not identity where Dodeja discusses deactivating the fan. To the contrary, the passages relied on by the Examiner (i.e., Dodeja ^fl[ 16, 31 (Ans. 14—15)) discuss maintaining air flow levels by increasing fan speed, not turning the fan off. For the foregoing reasons, and based on the record presented, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28, as well as claims 29—32, which depend therefrom. 6 Appeal 2015-003136 Application 12/628,143 The rejection of (a) claims 6 and 23 as being unpatentable over Tozer, Dodeja, and Kondo; (b) claim 9 as being unpatentable over Tozer, Dodeja, and Johnson; (c) claim 10 as being unpatentable over Tozer, Dodeja, and Campbell; and, (d) claims 26 and 31 as being unpatentable over Tozer, Dodeja, and Malone Regarding these additional rejections, the Examiner does not rely on Kondo, Johnson, Campbell, or Malone in a way that would cure the deficiencies of Tozer and Dodeja discussed above. We therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 6, 9, 10, 23, 26, and 31. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—13, 18—24, and 26—32 are reversed. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation