Ex Parte Konshak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

11426238 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL V. KONSHAK
____________

Appeal 2010-002063
Application 11/426,2381
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Appeal 2010-002063
Application 11/426,238

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 8-25, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. Claims 6 and 7 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to “thermal management of
electronic assemblies using liquid cooling systems.” (Spec. 1, ¶ [0001].)
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for modular cooling of electronic components
while preserving the integrity of a data center cooling structure, the
system comprising:
a modular unit configured to house within the modular unit a
plurality of electronic components wherein the modular unit is
mountable in a rack via a thermally conductive element;
a first liquid cooling loop configured to be in thermal contact
with the plurality of electronic components within the modular unit,
wherein the first liquid cooling loop fluidly communicates with at
least one channel embedded within a first portion of the thermally
conductive element; and
a second liquid cooling loop in thermal communication with a
second portion of the thermally conductive element wherein upon
mounting the modular unit in the rack the first portion of the thermally
conductive element is in physical and thermal contact with the second
portion of the conductive element.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:

1. Claims 1-5, 8, 10-21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2010-002063
Application 11/426,238

3
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Baer2 (US 6,796,372 B2, Sept. 28, 2004);
and
2. Claims 9, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baer and Faneuf (US 7,133,283 B2, Nov. 7, 2006).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Baer discloses “at least
one channel embedded within a first portion of the thermally conductive
element,” as claimed?

Appellant contends that “Baer does not disclose a first liquid cooling
loop that fluidly communicates with at least one channel embedded within a
first portion of a thermally conductive element.” (App. Br. 11.) Appellant
further contends that “the cooling loop [in Baer] merely circulates cooling
fluid into indirect contact with an external surface of the intermediate heat
exchanger 106.” (Id. at 12.)
The Examiner found that Baer’s element “106 necessitates a
channel,] since it receives fluid from 104.” (Ans. 3) (emphasis omitted)
The Examiner further found that “[t]he Fig.’s 3 and 5-6 explicitly depicts a

2 See Certificate of Correction for change in inventor name.
Appeal 2010-002063
Application 11/426,238

4
channel embedded (enclosed by all portions of 106, as possibly intended by
appellant) within the first portion.” (Ans. 10.) We agree with the Examiner.
Baer discloses that “the cold plate and intermediate heat exchanger
may include thermal enhancing techniques such as unique flow channels or
internally extended surfaces to improve their ability to absorb or transmit the
heat” (col. 2, ll. 13-17). In other words, Baer discloses using unique
channels or internally extended surfaces to transmit thermal fluid. We find
that an “internally extended surface” connotes an embedded channel given
that something that is “internal” is something that exists within or is situated
within the limits or surface of something. WEBSTER’S NINTH NEW
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, p.632 (9th ed. 1990).
Here, we find that the Examiner has appropriately associated Baer’s
cold plate 104, pump 134, and intermediate heat exchanger 106 portion with
the claimed “first liquid cooling loop” (Ans. 3; see also Baer, Fig. 1A).
Claim 1 requires that “the first liquid cooling loop fluidly communicates
with at least one channel embedded within a first portion of the thermally
conductive element” (claim 1). The claimed “thermally conductive
element” reads on Baer’s “intermediate heat exchanger 106.” Baer discloses
that “heat generated by the electronic device 102 is absorbed by cold plate
104 and transferred by thermal fluid to intermediate heat exchanger 106”
(Baer, col. 3, ll. 45-48). As noted above, Baer specifically discloses using
“unique flow channels or internally extended surfaces” to transfer thermal
fluid (Baer, col. 2, ll. 13-17). The recited “channel embedded within a first
portion of the thermally conductive element” (claim 1) is strikingly similar
(at least conceptually) to Baer’s teachings, and the Examiner’s reliance on
this functionality is therefore persuasive.
Appeal 2010-002063
Application 11/426,238

5
In view of the above discussion, Appellant has not demonstrated that
the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the disclosure of
Baer, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of representative independent
claim 1, as well as claims 2-5, 8, 10-21, and 25 not separately argued by
Appellant, is sustained.

Claim 23
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Baer discloses a single
phase cooling loop?
Appellant contends that Baer “teaches a two-phase cooling concept
that is opposite the requirement of claims 23.” (App. Br. 14.)
The Examiner found that Baer discloses that “other thermal fluids
may be used other than a refrigerant” (Ans. 11). We agree with the
Examiner.
While Baer discloses using “a refrigerant that undergoes a phase
change” (Baer, col. 5, ll. 12-14), Baer’s systems are not limited to this
embodiment as “other thermal fluids can be used” (id.). For example, Baer
discloses that “t]he fluid may be water, a dielectric fluid, a refrigerant, or
other suitable thermal chemical” (Baer, col. 2, ll. 19-20). Therefore, we find
that the Examiner did not err in finding that Baer discloses a single phase
cooling loop.

Appeal 2010-002063
Application 11/426,238

6
§ 103 (a) Rejection of Claims 9, 22, and 24
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Baer
and Faneuf teaches and/or suggests “wherein the embedded channel
comprises at least two internal channels” as claimed?
Appellant contends that “Faneuf clearly discloses a single channel
92.” (App. Br. 16.)
The Examiner found that “Faneuf-Fig. 6 depicts fluid inlet-94 into a
channel 100 and a fluid outlet-96 is located in a different channel 100,
whereby each chamber is separated by 98” (Ans. 11).
Specifically, Faneuf discloses that “[a]n inlet 94 is formed into the
internal volume 92, and an outlet 96 is formed out of the internal volume 92.
. . . The baffles 98 divide the internal volume 92 into four chambers 100.
The fluid flowing through the internal volume 92 flows sequentially through
the chambers 100” (Faneuf, col. 4, ll. 11-19). In other words, Faneuf
discloses an internal volume that is divided into four chambers/channels that
allow fluid to flow sequentially thereto. We find that such a configuration
appropriately describes at least two internal channels and the Examiner’s
reliance thereon is appropriate.
On this record, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 9, 22, and 24 for essentially the same reasons argued by the
Examiner, as discussed above. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
§103 rejection of claims 9, 22, and 24.

Appeal 2010-002063
Application 11/426,238

7
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102 and § 103 rejections.
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

llw