Ex Parte Mejias et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201613322973 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016) 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. 13/322,973 11/29/2011 Jose M. Mejias 82891315 4466 56436 7590 12/20/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER BOOKER, KELVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2127 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com chris. mania @ hpe. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSE M. MEJIAS and VICTOR DAVILA Appeal 2016-001282 Application 13/322,973 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a cooling system for a computer system. Specification 3. Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method for cooling comprising: Appeal 2016-001282 Application 13/322,973 accessing a preferred temperature corresponding to a computer system; accessing a current feedback temperature signal associated with one of a plurality of cooling devices; determining an actual temperature corresponding to said computer system; comparing said preferred temperature to said actual temperature; generating instructions that modify said current feedback temperature signal associated with said one of said plurality of cooling devices; and providing said modified current feedback temperature signal to a temperature feedback input of said one of said plurality of cooling devices, wherein said temperature feedback input is intended to receive an air return temperature signal of said one of said plurality of cooling devices, and wherein said modified current feedback temperature signal instructs said one of said plurality of cooling devices to provide cooling to said computer system such that said actual temperature is proximate said preferred temperature. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1—19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bash (US Patent Application Publication Number 2006/008001 Al; published April 13, 2006). Final Rejection 3—8. Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bash and Lyon (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0186670 Al; published August 7, 2008). Final Rejection 9 and 10. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 20, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed 2 Appeal 2016-001282 Application 13/322,973 November 6, 2015), the Answer (mailed September 8, 2015), and the Final Rejection (mailed November 20, 2014) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where noted. Anticipation Rejection Appellants contend Bash “relates to correlating vent tiles with racks based upon vent tile settings and rack inlet temperatures (see Bash, Abstract).” Appeal Brief 9. Appellants describe Bash’s utilization of the Vent Tile Operating [VTO] Index and contend “the VTO index of the Bash reference simply provides a correlation between the inlet temperatures of airflow delivered into the racks and the degree or percentage that the vent tiles are open.” Appeal Brief 10. Appellants argue: [T]o the extent the Bash reference provides that “the temperatures at the inlets of the racks 102a-102n may be detected with the temperature sensors 208 at the recorded vent tile 118a-118n settings ” (Bash, para. [0068]), the Bash reference simply provides that “the detected inlet temperatures may be transmitted or otherwise sent to the input/output module 206 and may also be stored in the memory 212 ” (emphases added) (Bash, para. [0068]). Appeal Brief 10. Appellants conclude Bash does not disclose multiple features of the invention as recited in independent claims 1 and 15. Appeal Brief 10—13 3 Appeal 2016-001282 Application 13/322,973 (for the sake of brevity, we do not list the features). We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. Appellants summarize Bash’s invention and list all the features Bash does not teach without specifically addressing the Examiner’s findings. We are therefore not persuaded of Examiner error in regard to independent claims 1 and 15.1 Appellants argue Bash “simply correlates vent tiles with racks based upon vent tile settings and rack inlet temperatures (See Bash, Abstract).” Appeal Brief 13. Appellants further argue Bash “does not disclose controlling a temperature within a first localized environment (having a computer system contained therein) by modifying a temperature within a second localized environment (having a temperature feedback sensor of a cooling device contained therein), as recited in dependent claim 17.” Appeal Brief 13. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the Examiner relied upon Bash paragraphs 18, 67—74, 84 and Figure 3 A to support the anticipation rejection. See Final Rejection 8. Appellants make similar arguments in regard to dependent claims 18 and 19 and therefore we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the Examiner cited paragraph 25 and not the Abstract as Appellants contend. See Final Rejection 8; see also Appeal Brief 13. We sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, as well as independent claim 8 not separately argued. 1 In an appeal from a rejection for anticipation, Appellants must explain which limitations are not found in the reference. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[W]e expect that the Board's anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation basis, with specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory explanations for such findings.”) (emphasis added). See also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 4 Appeal 2016-001282 Application 13/322,973 Appeal Brief 13. We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claims 17—19, as well as, dependent claims 2—7, 9—14, and 16 not separately argued. Appeal Brief 13—14. Obviousness Rejection Appellants argue Lyon fails to address the deficiency of Bash and note Lyon relates to an electronics cooling system. Appeal Brief 15. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive as Appellants fail to address the Examiner’s findings by addressing Lyon’s Abstract instead of Lyon’s figure 1 and paragraph 20 as cited by the Examiner in the final Rejection, pages 9— 10. Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellants to present evidence and/or arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Since Appellants did not particularly point out errors in the Examiner’s reasoning to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, the rejection of claims 20 and 21 is therefore sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—19 is affirmed. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 20 and 21 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)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. §41.50(f). 5 Appeal 2016-001282 Application 13/322,973 AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation