Ex Parte Kamath et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201813323330 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018) 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. 13/323,330 12/12/2011 Vinod Kamath XRPS920110086US1 7377 60501 7590 02/02/2018 LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-KLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP 301 Congress Avenue Suite 1350 AUSTIN, TX 78701 EXAMINER PATEL, PARESH H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2868 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2018 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): office@klspatents.com kate@klspatents.com hanna@klspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VINOD KAMATH, DEREK I. SCHMIDT, MARK E. STEINKE, and JAMES S. WOMBLE1 Appeal 2016-006517 Application 13/323,3302 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 Vinod Kamath, Derek I. Schmidt, Mark E. Steinke, and James S. Womble are identified as the inventors of the appealed application. 2 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Lenovo Enterprise Solutions. See App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-006517 Application 13/323,330 Appellants’ invention relates generally to a liquid cooled planer that includes at least one or more of the computing components which is liquid cooled and one or more conductive cooling components mounted on the planer. (Spec. 2). Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the principal Brief. 1. A liquid cooled planer comprising: one or more computing components mounted on the planer; a conductive cooling apparatus mounted on the planer; and a convective cooling apparatus mounted on the planer; wherein the convective cooling apparatus includes a liquid cooling component; wherein the convective cooling apparatus is separate from the conductive cooling apparatus; wherein no component of the convective cooling apparatus constitutes the conductive cooling apparatus. Appellants (see generally App. Br.) request review of the following rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Patel. (U.S. 6,421,240 Bl). The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 2—4). 2 Appeal 2016-006517 Application 13/323,330 OPINION3 After consideration of Appellants’ arguments and evidence and the Examiner’s position in the Final Office Action and Answer, we AFFIRM the anticipation and obviousness determinations. Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we determine that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness determinations. The Examiner found Patel discloses a liquid cooling planar (101 A) including a convective cooling apparatus (242/204) and a conductive cooling apparatus (208/206C). The Examiner found Patel’s convective cooling apparatus 242 of 204 is separate from conductive cooling apparatus 208 of 206C. The Examiner determined Patel’s disclosure renders the claimed subject matter unpatentable because the planer includes separate conductive and convective cooling apparatuses as required by the claimed invention. (Final Act. 2-3). Appellants argue Patel does not disclose a liquid cooling planar that includes both a conductive cooling apparatus and a convective cooling 3 Appellants present substantially the same arguments for independent claims 1, 7, and 12 for both the anticipation and obviousness rejections. (App. Br. 4-10). Appellants do not present substantial arguments addressing dependent claims 2-6, 8-11 and 13-16. (See generally App. Br.). We select independent claim 1 as representative. 3 Appeal 2016-006517 Application 13/323,330 apparatus wherein the convective cooling apparatus is separate from the conductive cooling apparatus and no component of the convective cooling apparatus constitutes the conductive cooling apparatus as required by independent claims 1, 7, and 12.4 (App. Br. 4). Appellants specifically argue: Patel’s conductive cooling component (cooling plate arrangement) includes a convective cooling component (coolant and coolant channel). A conductive cooling component that includes a convective cooling component does [not teach or suggest] a convective liquid cooling apparatus that is separate from a conductive cooling apparatus where no component of the convective cooling apparatus constitutes the conductive cooling apparatus. Because Patel’s system includes conductive cooling components that each have a convective cooling component, Patel’s system does not [teach or suggest] a liquid cooling planar that includes a conductive cooling apparatus and a convective cooling apparatus; wherein the convective cooling apparatus is separate from the conductive cooling apparatus and no component of the convective cooling apparatus constitutes the conductive cooling apparatus, as recited in claims 1, 7, and 12. (App. Br. 4-5). Appellants argue Patel’s thermally conductive housings (205, 207) both cool the microprocessor and the memory element through conduction. Patel’s conductive cooling apparatus therefore includes the thermally conductive housing 205 and the thermally conductive housing 207 to cool the components of the circuit modules 204, 206 through coupling to a cold plate 212. (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue Patel’s cold plate 242 includes coolant channels for coolant. (App. Br. 6; Patel col. 5,11. 38^40). Appellants 4 Appellants present the same arguments when addressing the obviousness rejection. (App. Br. 7-9). 4 Appeal 2016-006517 Application 13/323,330 argue the coolant in the coolant channel cools the circuit modules through a convection process. (App. Br. 6). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error for the reasons provided by the Examiner. We add the following. Appellants’ arguments regarding the cooling plate (212) attached to the cooling tubes (216) as providing a conductive/convection combination component are not persuasive of reversible error. Appellants have not disputed that Patel’s cooling tubes (216) transfer heat by a convection cooling. According to Appellants’ specification, the convection cooling components are directly or indirectly connected to the heat generating computing components wherein the heat generated from the computing components is thermally transferred to the water passing through the pipes that form the convection cooling components. (Spec. 6,11. 11-28). Appellants have not explained how the cooling plate (212) fails to transfer heat generated from the computer components thermally to the cooling tubes (216). Furthermore, Appellants have not directed us to evidence that establishes the cooling plate (212) is structured/sized in a way that results in conduction cooling in addition to thermally transferring the heat from the computer components to the cooling tubes. “[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Inti, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000).5 Notwithstanding this, it would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art to have selected the size of the cooling plates (212) to only provide 5 Appeal 2016-006517 Application 13/323,330 Appellants also have not disputed that Patel describes separate conductive cooling components (208). Patel specifically discloses the top portion (208) of the housing circuit modules (204-206) is made of a metallic material to maximize heat transfer from the integrated circuit elements. (Patel col 4,11. 48-58). Appellants in the Reply Brief argue the cooling components mounted on top of module (206C) also do not teach or suggest a conductive cooling apparatus that is separate from a convective cooling apparatus. (Reply Br. 10-11). These arguments are not persuasive because Appellants have not directed us to portions of Patel that describe heat sink component (210) as including tubing necessary for convection cooling. For the reasons stated above, and the reasons presented by the Examiner, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ORDER The rejections of claims 1-16 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. AFFIRMED thermal transfer of the heat from the computer components to the cooling tubes as described by Patel. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation