Ex Parte Lev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2014

11799185 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JEFFREY A. LEV, JEFFREY KEVIN JEANSONNE,
and WALTER G. FRY
________________

Appeal 2011-010778
Application 11/799,185
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, ANDREW J. DILLON, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5, 6, 10, 19, and 23. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-18, 20-22, and
24 are canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 5, 6, 10, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Cohen (US 6,760,649 B2; issued July 6, 2004) and
Rockenfeller (US 7,212,403 B2; issued May 1, 2007; filed Oct. 25, 2004).
Ans. 4-5.
We reverse.
Appeal 2011-010778
Application 11/799,185

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to an electronic device thermal
management system. Abstract. Claims 5 and 10 are illustrative and
reproduced below:
5. An electronic device thermal management system,
comprising:
a thermal management controller configured to maintain
a temperature level within a housing of an electronic device
below a predetermined temperature based on at least one
continuous signal indicative of a temperature of at least a
portion of an external wall of the housing of the electronic
device, wherein the controller is configured to adjust a
performance level of at least one component based on a
prioritization of components within the housing based on the
temperature of the external wall.

10. An electronic device thermal management system,
comprising:
a thermal management controller configured to maintain
a temperature level within a housing of an electronic device
below a predetermined temperature based on at least one
continuous signal indicative of a temperature of at least a
portion of an external wall of the housing of the electronic
device, wherein the controller adjusts a baffling system based
on the temperature of the external wall.

ANALYSIS
Claims 5 and 6
The Examiner finds Cohen teaches all limitations of claim 1 except
for the recited controller configured to adjust a performance level of at least
Appeal 2011-010778
Application 11/799,185

3
one component based on a prioritization of components, for which the
Examiner relies on Rockenfeller. Ans. 4. The Examiner explains
Rocke[n]feller teaches the prioritizing each of the plurality of
heat-generating components based on the cooling requirements
and critical operating temperature limits of the respective
components, positioning the baffles and/or air ducts so as to
direct the air flow from the one or more fans to the different
electronic components, and directing the air flow to the
respective components in selected sequence based on
prioritized cooling requirements. The apparatus and method
may be used in combination with other passive and/or active
cooling devices or heat sinks. Thus it would have been obvious
[to] one skilled in the art to incorporate the use of the
prioritizing each of the plurality of heat-generating components
of Rocke[n]feller with [the] Cohen cooling system.
Ans. 4.
Appellants argue, among other arguments, that
Cohen fails to disclose a controller that adjusts performance
based upon [prioritization] of components. In contrast, the
“prioritization” carried out by Rocke[n]feller is done at the
point of manufacture of a laptop computer by permanently
fixing baffles and ducting so as to direct airflow from a fan
through a laptop computer to those components having a higher
priority. The controller of Cohen is not involved in any way in
the prioritized cooling of components.
App. Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner explains “Rocke[n]feller discloses a
CONTROLLER that adjusts the performance level based upon a
prioritization of components within the housing (see Abstract, col. 4, lines
44-62, col. 6, lines 29-45).” Ans. 6.
There is no dispute that Cohen does not teach the recited controller
configured to adjust a performance level of at least one component based on
a prioritization of components. See Ans. 4. Rockenfeller describes “fans
Appeal 2011-010778
Application 11/799,185

4
cooperating with baffles or ducts for directing a stream of air sequentially to
the components or heat exchangers for the components. Direction of the air
stream to the components is based on predetermined cooling prioritization
of the plurality of components.” Rockenfeller, Abstract (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 9) that, at most,
Rockenfeller considers a prioritization of the plurality of components when
determining where to place components in the housing at the time of
manufacture. The Examiner has not explained — and we cannot tell from
the record — where Rockenfeller adjusts a performance level of at least one
component based on a prioritization of components. Further, the Examiner
has not explained how or why Cohen would be modified to adjust a
performance level of at least one component based on a prioritization of
components.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, or
of claim 6 which depends from claim 5.

Claims 10, 19, and 23
The Examiner finds Cohen teaches all limitations of claim 10 except
for the recited controller adjusts a baffling system based on the temperature
of the external wall, for which the Examiner relies on Rockenfeller. Ans. 5.
The Examiner explains
Rockefeller teaches positioning the baffles and/or air ducts so
as to direct the air flow from the one or more fans to the
different electronic components, and directing the air flow to
the respective components in selected sequence based on
prioritized cooling requirements. Thus it would have been
obvious [to] one skilled in the art to incorporate the use of the
Appeal 2011-010778
Application 11/799,185

5
controlling the baffling system of Rockefeller with [the] Cohen
cooling system.
Ans. 5.
Appellants argue
Rocke[n]feller does not disclose any adjustment of a baffling
system based upon a temperature of an external wall. Rather,
the baffles of Rocke[n]feller are stationary and fixed at the
point of manufacture. They CANNOT be adjusted. They
CANNOT be adjusted or positioned based upon a sensed
temperature of an external wall of a lap top during operation of
the laptop.
App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner explains
Rocke[n]feller teaches positioning the baffles and/or air ducts
so as to direct the air flow from the one or more fans to the
different electronic components, and directing the air flow to
the respective components in selected sequence based on
prioritized cooling requirements (see col. 4, lines 63-68). The
claim interpretation of adjustment of a baffling system [does]
not necessarily in[clude] movable baffles. Rocke[n]feller
clearly discloses that the baffles may be situated in any
desirable position (see col. 4, lines 62-63). Thus it would have
been obvious [to] one skilled in the art to incorporate the use of
the controlling the baffling system of Rocke[n]feller with [the]
Cohen cooling system.
Ans. 7-8.
There is no dispute that Cohen does not teach the recited controller
adjusts a baffling system based on the temperature of the external wall. See
Ans. 5. Rockenfeller describes “[t]he baffles may be situated in any
desirable position, so long as the air flow is diverted for the sequential
cooling as described.” Rockenfeller, col. 4, ll. 62-63.
Appeal 2011-010778
Application 11/799,185

6
We agree with Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 10) that
Rockenfeller’s baffles are stationary and fixed at the point of manufacture.
The Examiner does not seem to disagree with this position, explaining that
the recited adjusting a baffling system does not require movable baffles. See
Ans. 7-8. We disagree with the Examiner, and are persuaded by Appellants’
argument.
Claim 10 recites “the controller adjusts a baffling system based on the
temperature of the external wall.” To the extent Rockenfeller considers a
prioritization of the plurality of components when determining where to
place components in the housing at the time of manufacture, we do not see
how, without movable baffles, Rockenfeller meets claim 10’s recited “the
controller adjusts a baffling system based on the temperature of the external
wall.” A single adjustment at the time of manufacture does not adjust based
on the temperature of the external wall.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 19 which recites “adjusting a baffling system based on
the temperature of at least a portion of the external wall.”
For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 23 which recites “the maintaining means positions a
baffling means based on the temperature of the external wall of the
housing.”

Appeal 2011-010778
Application 11/799,185

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5, 6, 10, 19, and 23 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc