Ex Parte Kelley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 201613438735 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/438,735 04/03/2012 25096 7590 02/17/2016 PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General PATENT-SEA P.O. BOX 1247 SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Douglas P. Kelley 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 324758037US1 2237 EXAMINER LOPEZ ALVAREZ, OLVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2121 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2016 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): patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DOUGLAS P. KELLEY, WADE J. DOLL, and ALEXANDER I. YATSKOV Appeal2014-005064 1 Application 13/438,735 Technology Center 2100 Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 An oral hearing was held January 8, 2016. 2 Appellants identify Cray Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "[c]omputer systems and associated methods for cooling computer components." Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer system, comprising: a computer cabinet having an air inlet spaced apart from an air outlet, and at least a first computer module compartment spaced apart from a second computer module compartment, wherein the air inlet, the air outlet, and the computer module compartments define an air flow path through the computer cabinet; at least one sensor operatively coupled to the computer cabinet; at least a first heat exchanger positioned upstream of the first computer module compartment in the air flow path, a second heat exchanger positioned between the first and second computer module compartments in the air flow path, and a third heat exchanger positioned downstream of the second computer module compartment in the air flow path; a heat removal system in fluid communication with the heat exchangers for circulating working fluid between the heat removal system and the heat exchangers; a control system operatively coupled to the at least one sensor, the control system having a computer-readable medium containing instructions for sequentially controlling the flow of working fluid to the third heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and then the first heat exchanger based on heat transfer between the computer cabinet and a room in which the computer cabinet is placed, as measured by the at least one sensor; and an air mover that moves cooling air through the computer cabinet along the air flow path and past the first and second heat exchangers to cool the working fluid circulating therethrough. 2 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL3 Claims 1, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yatskov (US 2005/0207116 Al; published Sept. 22, 2005) and Patel (US 6,854,287 B2; issued Feb. 15, 2005). Final Act. 19-28; Ans. 13-22. Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofYatskov, Patel, and Bash '448 (US 7,315,448 Bl; issued Jan. 1, 2008). Final Act. 28-32; Ans. 22-25. Claims 4, 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yatskov, Patel, Bash '448, and Bash '946 (US 7,051,946 B2; issued May 30, 2006). Final Act. 32-35; Ans. 26- 29. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofYatskov, Patel, Bash '448, Bash '946, and Ban (US 5,829,676; issued Nov. 3, 1998). Final Act. 35--40; Ans. 29- 33. ISSUES ON APPEAL Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues before us are as follows: 3 Claims 1-21 are also rejected on the ground ofnonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8, 170,724. Final Act. 8-19; Ans. 2-12. Appellants do not challenge that rejection but indicate that they reserve the right to file a terminal disclaimer "once the other substantive issues addressed in this appeal are resolved." Reply Br. 2. Accordingly, we summarily affirm that rejection. 3 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 Issue One: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Yatskov and Patel teaches a control system "having a computer-readable medium containing instructions for sequentially controlling the flow of working fluid to [a] third heat exchanger, [a] second heat exchanger, and then [a] first heat exchanger," as recited in independent claim 1? See App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 2-9. Issue Two: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Y atskov and Patel teaches a control system operatively coupled to [] at least one temperature sensor, the control system having a computer- readable medium containing instructions for independently controlling the flow of working fluid to [] first and second heat exchangers based on heat transfer between [a] computer cabinet and a room in which the computer cabinet is placed, as measured by the at least one temperature sensor, as recited in independent claim 11? App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 9-10. Issue Three: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Y atskov and Patel teaches assessing heat transfer between [a] computer cabinet and [a] room; and when the heat transfer between the computer cabinet and the room is not balanced within a desired range, adjusting a parameter of at least one of the air flow and the working fluid to reduce the imbalance of the heat transfer between the computer cabinet and the room, as recited in independent claim 17? App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 10-11. Issue Four: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Yatskov and Patel teaches "wherein adjusting a parameter causes a temperature differential between [an] inlet temperature and [an] outlet 4 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 temperature to be within a desired range," as recited in dependent claim 19? App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 12. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the Examiner's findings and Appellants' arguments, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed March 11, 2013, the Appeal Brief filed January 6, 2014, the Examiner's Answer mailed February 13, 2014, and the Reply Brief filed April 9, 2014, for the respective details. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. Except as provided below, we disagree with Appellants' conclusions, adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer, and concur with the Examiner's conclusions. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Issue One The Examiner finds that Y atskov teaches nearly all elements of claim 1, including "a control system operatively coupled to the at least one sensor," but that Yatskov does not explicitly teach the control system having a computer-readable medium containing instructions for sequentially controlling the flow of working fluid to the third heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and then the first heat exchanger based on heat transfer between the computer cabinet and a room in which the computer cabinet is placed as measured by the at least one sensor. Final Act. 19-21. The Examiner additionally finds, however, that Patel, in an analogous art, also teaches a cooling system for a plurality of computer systems, comprising a controller coupled to at least one sensor, and that Patel further teaches each of the elements of claim 1 not explicitly taught by 5 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 Yatskov. Id. at 21. With respect to the recited limitation "sequentially controlling the flow of working fluid to the third heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and then the first heat exchanger," in particular, the Examiner cites column 4, line 59, of Patel as teaching that several heat- exchanger units ("HEU s") may be positioned to cool a rack; column 10, lines 55-58, of Patel as teaching that a rack refers to racks for supporting computer components and additionally to sections of the racks as well as areas around the racks; Fig. 5 of Patel as teaching a program for controlling the flow of working fluid to a plurality of exchangers sequentially; and column 11, lines 39--41, of Patel as teaching that controller 54 increases the flow of the cooling fluid via operation of the valves. Id. According to the Examiner, "As can be clearly seen in Fig. 5 [of Patel], the program starts detecting the temperature of every rack Tr's, then determines the range or a threshold value," and "[t]hen, it sequentially controls the flow of every rack as taught in Col 11 lines 39--42." Id. Appellants contend that "Figure 5 and the cited text from Patel do not disclose or suggest sequentially controlling the flow of working fluid to heat exchangers, as required by claim 1." App. Br. 11. More specifically, according to Appellants, Patel fails to disclose or suggest sequentially controlling the flow of working fluid first to a third heat exchanger (i.e., a heat exchanger positioned downstream of a second computer module compartment), then to a second heat exchanger (i.e., a heat exchanger positioned between a first computer module compartment and the second computer module compartment), and then to a first heat exchanger (i.e., a heat exchanger positioned upstream of the first computer module compartment). Id. at 11-12. 6 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 We agree with Appellants. Although the cited portions of Patel indicate, for example, that "HEU controller 54 may increase the flow of cooling fluid through the HEU 56 via operation of the pump 60 and/or the valve 78" (Patel 11 :39--42), we discern no support on this record for the Examiner's finding that Patel controls the flow of fluid to heat exchangers sequentially in the claimed order. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of Y atskov and Patel. Further, because claims 2-10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and the Examiner did not cite Bash '448, Bash '946, or Ban as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation set forth above, we also will not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-10 as being unpatentable over the cited combinations of those references with Y atskov and Patel. Issue Two Appellants argue that the Examiner "appears to rely solely on Y atskov in the rejection of claim 11" and "appears to assert that the control system of claim 11 is 'implicitly taught' by Yatskov." App. Br. 15. Appellants "traverse[] the notion that Yatskov implicitly teaches a control system containing a computer-readable medium for independently controlling the flow of working fluid to first and second heat exchangers positioned in a computer cabinet, as required by claim 11." Id. Appellants further contend that "Patel also fails to disclose or suggest the features of claim 11." In particular, according to Appellants, "Patel does not disclose or suggest independently controlling the flow of working fluid to individual heat exchangers positioned inside a particular computer cabinet," and "Patel also fails to disclose or suggest controlling the flow of working fluid to such heat 7 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 exchangers 'based on heat transfer between the computer cabinet and a room."' Id. at 16; see also Reply Br. 9-10. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner's findings regarding claim 11 are presented under a heading stating that "Claims 1, 11-12, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yatskov . .. in view of Patel" (Final Act. 19 (emphasis added)), and the specific discussion of claim 11 refers back to the findings regarding claim 1 (id. at 23-24 (stating, for each element of claim 11, "see claim 1 above"); see also Ans. 42 (stating that "the rationale of the last limitation in claim 11 included the teachings of the combination of Yatskov and Patel as clearly recited in claim l"). Although as previously stated we discern no support for the Examiner's finding that the cited portions of Patel teach sequentially controlling the flow of working fluid to the third heat exchanger, the second heat exchanger, and then the first heat exchanger, as recited in claim 1, claim 11 does not recite that limitation but instead recites "independently controlling the flow of working fluid to the first and second heat exchangers" (emphasis added). The cited portions of Patel support a finding that Patel teaches independent control of working fluid to a plurality of heat-exchange units (e.g., using pumps 38 and valves 40, 44, 62), based on heat transfer between a computer cabinet and a room in which the cabinet is placed, as measured by at least one temperature sensor (e.g., temperature sensors 46, 48, 68). See, e.g., Patel 6:42-7:6, 7:10-15, 52-55, 8:20-24, 10:39-11 :42, Figs. 2-5; see also Ans. 38--41. Appellants additionally argue that "the Examiner has failed to articulate any reasoning with rational underpinning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have been motivated to modify 8 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 Yatskov with Patel." App. Br. 16. Appellants' argument is not persuasive of error. As the Examiner explains, obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 41 (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). On this record, we discern no error in the Examiner's finding that Patel provides sufficient motivation to combine Y atskov and Patel in the manner proposed. See, e.g., Patel 14:1-5 (quoted by Ans. 42) (disclosing that "by operating the cooling system to supply cooling fluid substantially only as needed by the racks, the cooling system may be operated at [sic] a relatively more efficient manner in comparison with conventional cooling systems"). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over the combination of Y atskov and Patel. We also affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 12-16, for which Appellants rely on their arguments with respect to claim 11 and unspecified "additional features of these dependent claims" but do not present any additional substantive argument. App. Br. 19-21; Reply Br. 12-13. Cf 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."). 9 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 Issue Three Appellants argue that the text of Patel cited by the Examiner does not disclose or suggest "'assessing the heat transfer between the computer cabinet and the room,' and when the heat transfer is not balanced, 'adjusting a parameter of at least one of the airflow and the working fluid to reduce the imbalance of the heat transfer between the computer cabinet and the room,"' as recited in claim 17. App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 10-11. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. With respect to the claim steps identified by Appellants, the Examiner cites, inter alia, column 6, lines 56 through 62 of Patel, which states that "[t]emperature sensors 46 may be located in a supply portion and a return portion of the fluid line 28 such that a determination may be made as to changes in the cooling fluid temperature prior to and following flow through the [heat exchange unit] 22." This indicates that Patel contemplates assessing heat transfer and adjusting a parameter of the working fluid (i.e., its temperature). See also Patel 6:60-62 (describing adjusting another parameter of the working fluid, namely, the amount thereof to be introduced into the supply portion of the fluid line). Column 7, lines 10-15, of Patel, also cited by the Examiner for these steps (Final Act. 21, 25), teaches that temperature and air flow in the room, which are additional measures of heat transfer between the computer cabinet and the room under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim phrase, may also be gathered or measured by a mobile device. The Examiner also cites column 10, line 39, through column 11, line 42, of Patel, which states in part, with reference to Figure 5 of Patel, At step 120, the temperature of one or more racks (Tr) is sensed by temperature sensors, e.g., one or more temperature sensors 68. 10 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 At step 130, it is determined whether each of the Tr's is within a predetermined range of operating temperatures, e.g., between a maximum set point temperature (Tmax,set) and a minimum set point temperature (Tmin,set). In general, the range of temperatures Tmin,set and Tmax,set pertains to threshold temperatures to determine whether to increase or decrease the flow of cooling air delivered to the racks .... For those racks having Tr's that are within the predetermined range, their temperatures are sensed again at step 120. For those racks determined to have heat loads that do not fall within the predetermined temperature range, i.e., fall outside of Tmin,set and Tmax,set, the HEU controller 54 may determine whether those racks have temperatures that are below the Tmin,set at step 140. The air flow supplied by the HEU 56, and more particularly the fans 58, configured to supply cooling air flow to the racks having Tr's below or equal to the Tmin,set, may be decreased at step 150. In addition, and/or alternatively, the temperature of the cooling fluid supplied through the HEU's 56 may be increased to thereby increase the temperature of the air supplied to these racks. Patel 10:40-11:27; see Final Act. 21, 25. Because the previously cited text from columns 6 and 7 of Patel teach additional measures of heat transfer, Appellants' contention that "a singular temperature of a rack, a rack component, or in the vicinity of a rack ... provides no information about the heat actually transferred to the room" (Reply Br. 6) is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over the combination of Y atskov and Patel. We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 18, for which Appellants rely on their arguments with respect to claim 17 and unspecified "additional features of [this] dependent claim" but do not present any additional substantive argument. App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 12-13. 11 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 Issue Four Claim 19 depends from claim 17 and further recites "wherein adjusting a parameter causes a temperature differential between the inlet temperature and the outlet temperature to be within a desired range." Appellants argue: The Examiner relies on Patel for teaching this claim limitation, and directs appellant to see column 9 of Patel, at lines 36-58. (Office Action at 28). Contrary to the Examiner's assertion, however, the cited text does not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 19. Rather, the cited text explains that the HEU controller 54 may manipulate an HEU 56 and/or fan 58, and/or the cooling device controller 70 may cause the cooling device 72 to lower the refrigerant temperature, to compensate for a change in temperature of a rack 12 or areas surrounding the rack. (Patel, col. 9, lines 37-43). Merely changing the temperature of a rack or surrounding area is insufficient to teach or suggest the specific claim limitation of adjusting a parameter to cause a temperature differential between the inlet temperature and the outlet temperature to be within a desired range. App. Br. 19-20; see also Reply Br. 12. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F .2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). In the absence of any further limitation of the "desired range" within which the differential between the inlet temperature and the outlet temperature must be maintained in the context of claim 19, we broadly but reasonably construe that term to include any differential range desired, such as a range that results in maintaining the temperature of cooling racks within a predetermined temperature range. The 12 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 antecedent basis for the terms "inlet" and "outlet" in the phrase "temperature differential between the inlet temperature and the outlet temperature" recited in claim 19 is provided by the phrase "moving a flow of cooling air through the computer cabinet along an air flow path from an air inlet to an air outlet" recited in claim 17 (emphasis added). Although the Examiner cites Y atskov as teaching that element and "the specific and desired arrangement of the HEU's in a rack" (see Final Act. 24; Ans. 45), the Examiner also finds that Patel teaches that "a rack refers to racks for supporting computer components and additionally to .... areas around the racks" (Final Act. 25 (quoting Patel 10:55-58)). Further, as cited by the Examiner, Patel discloses that "if there is a detected ... change in the temperature of a rack, e.g., rack 12, areas surrounding the rack, etc., the HEU controller 54 may operate to manipulate the corresponding HEU 56 and/or fan(s) 58" to adjust parameters such as "volume flow rate, velocity, and other characteristic of the air flow," and "in this respect, each of the racks 12 and/ or portions thereof may generally receive substantially only the amount of cooling air necessary to maintain the temperature of the racks 12 within a predetermined temperature range." Patel 9:36-58 (cited at Final Act. 28). In view of the cited disclosure, we discern no error in the Examiner's finding that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art "to have modified Yatskov invention and have adjusted the parameters as taught by Patel to bring the temperature in the system within a desired range in order to decrease the amount of energy used and decrease the costs required to cool the computer system." Final Act. 28 (citing Patel 9:36-58). 13 Appeal2014-005064 Application 13/438,735 Accordingly, we atlirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 19 as unpatentable over the combination of Y atskov and Patel. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. The Examiner's rejections of claims 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting is 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 14 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation