Ex Parte Lewis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2015

11625716 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2015)

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.
11/625,716 01/22/2007 Richard Evans LEWIS II 3001.081 8968
36790 7590 09/14/2015
TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
PO BOX 49309
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277-0076
EXAMINER
TOWNS, BRITTANY E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD EVANS LEWIS II
____________

Appeal 2013-003596
Application 11/625,716
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 2–11, 13–17, 22–31, and 33–36. 2 We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

1 “[T]he real party in interest is Chatsworth Products, Inc.” (Appeal Br. 3.)
2 See Notice of Appeal, filed Sept. 20, 2011; see also Final Act 1.
Appeal 2013-003596
Application 11/625,716

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention relates to “air ducts for providing cool air
to hot spots in equipment enclosures.” (Spec. ¶ 3.)

Illustrative Claim
22. An electronic equipment enclosure installation,
comprising:
an electronic equipment enclosure including a front, a
back, and two sides, the enclosure being installed on a raised
floor that has at least two distinct openings therethrough such
that the at least two spaced-apart openings are disposed
directly beneath the enclosure;
at least a first collector and a second collector, each
comprising a hollow body with a downward-facing opening
in the bottom thereof, that are installed in the bottom of the
enclosure in a spaced-apart fashion such that the downward-
facing opening of the first collector is in direct fluid
communication with a first of the spaced-apart openings and
the downward-facing opening of the second collector is in
direct fluid communication with a second of the spaced-apart
openings and usable interior enclosure space is provided
between the first and second collectors; and
at least two risers mounted within the electronic
equipment enclosure, each riser being mounted adjacent a
different one of the two sides of the electronic equipment
enclosure;
wherein each riser has a lengthwise channel defined
therethrough, the lengthwise channel of each riser being
defined entirely by that riser, and the lengthwise channel of
each riser has an interior in fluid communication with an
interior of a respective collector; and
wherein each riser includes a plurality of ports for
routing the cool air received from the collector to an interior
of the enclosure, each port of the plurality of ports of each
riser being configured to be selectively opened and closed so
as to selectively route air to the interior of the enclosure.
Appeal 2013-003596
Application 11/625,716

3
References
Smith US 6,198,628 B1 Mar. 6, 2001
Storck US 6,616,524 B2 Sept. 9, 2003
Johnson US 6,668,565 B1 Dec. 30, 2003
Bettridge US 2005/0153649 A1 July 14, 2005
Germagian US 7,259,963 B2 Aug. 21, 2007

Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
II. The Examiner rejects claims 2–6, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bettridge and Johnson.
III. The Examiner rejects claims 7–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bettridge, Johnson, and Germagian.
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bettridge, Johnson, and Smith.
V. The Examiner rejects claims 22–26 and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bettridge and Storck.
VI. The Examiner rejects claims 27–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bettridge, Storck, and Germagian.
VII. The Examiner rejects claims 33–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bettridge, Storck, and Smith.

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Appellant presents no arguments on appeal for this rejection, thus
we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Appeal 2013-003596
Application 11/625,716

4
Rejections II–IV
The Appellant presents no arguments on appeal for these rejections,
thus we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–11 and 13–
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection V
Independent claim 22 sets forth an installation comprising an
“enclosure,” a “first collector,” and a “second collector.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The collectors each have “a hollow body” and they are
“installed in the bottom of the enclosure in a spaced-apart fashion.” (Id.)
The Examiner finds that Bettridge discloses an enclosure (cabinet 10) and
collectors (duct housings 72). (Final Act. 4.) Bettridge’s duct housings 72
each have a hollow body and they are installed in the bottom of cabinet 10 in
a spaced-apart fashion. (See e.g., Bettridge Fig. 1)3
Independent claim 22 requires the enclosure be “installed on a raised
floor that has at least two distinct openings therethrough.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds Storck teaches a floor system having a
raised floor with two openings 47. (See Answer 15–17.) The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to install Bettridge’s cabinet 10 on
such a raised floor to “provide cooler air to the electronic enclosure.” (Id.
at 17.)
Independent claim 22 additionally requires each collector to have a
“downward-facing opening” that is “in direct fluid communication” with a

3 As the Examiner considers Bettridge’s duct housings 72 to be the claimed
collectors, the Appellant’s argument that Storck’s collars 23 are not
“collectors” as required by claim 22 (see Appeal Br. 12–13) is not
persuasive.
Appeal 2013-003596
Application 11/625,716

5
corresponding one of the floor openings. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner finds duct housing 72 can be modified to have a “downwardly
facing opening” to receive air from the subfloor and “directly send cooler air
to the electronic equipment.” (Answer 26.)
The Appellant argues that the bottom of duct housing 72 “must, by
necessity be closed off to prevent air from escaping through the bottom
thereof.” (Appeal Br. 9, emphasis omitted.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because it does not address the modified air-intake path in the
raised-floor installation of cabinet 10. In this installation, the downwardly
facing openings in duct housings 72 would not provide air-escape outlets,
but rather air-intake inlets to receive cooler air from the subfloor.
Independent claim 22 also requires the enclosure to be installed such
that the floor openings “are disposed directly beneath the enclosure.”
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that, in the raised-floor
installation of cabinet 10, the floor openings “would be positioned directly
beneath the enclosure.” (Answer 29.)
The Appellant argues that neither Bettridge nor Storck discloses or
suggests floor openings disposed directly beneath an enclosure. (Appeal
Br. 17.) We are not persuaded by this argument because it does not address
the location of the floor openings in the raised-floor installation of
Bettridge’s cabinet 10. In this installation, duct housings 72 are positioned
within cabinet 10 and their downwardly-facing openings receive air from the
subfloor of the raised floor system. (Answer 26.) As such, the floor
openings would be disposed below duct housings 72 and thus directly
beneath cabinet 10.
Appeal 2013-003596
Application 11/625,716

6
Independent claim 22 further requires that “usable interior enclosure
space” be “provided between the first and second collectors.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that, in Bettridge, an internal chamber 20
is formed between ducts 50 and duct housings 72; and the Examiner finds
that chamber 20 has supporting structure 18 for electrical equipment. (See
Answer 26–27; see also Bettridge ¶ 38, Fig. 3.)
The Appellant argues that in Bettridge’s cabinet 10, duct housings 72
are located beneath a partition wall 82 and any “usable space” is located
above this partition wall 82. (Appeal Br. 15.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because the Appellant does not point, with particularity, to
language in the claims and/or statements in the Specification precluding the
“usable space” from being located between, and also above, the collectors.
For example, the Appellant cites paragraph 55 and Figure 8 as support for
the recital of “usable interior space therebetween” in claim 22. (See Appeal
Br. 4.) This paragraph discusses, and this drawing depicts, electronic
equipment 26 installed in a space between, and also above, collectors 134.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs
in rejecting independent claim 22 as unpatentable over Bettridge and Storck.
As dependent claims 23–26 and 36 are not argued separately, they fall with
independent claim 22. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
22–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejections VI and VII
The Appellant submits claims 27–31 and 33–35 stand or fall together
with independent claim 22. (Appeal Br. 17.) Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2013-003596
Application 11/625,716

7

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–11, 13–17, 22–31,
and 33–36.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

JRG