Ex Parte LEWISDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 11, 201511625716 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2015) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation