Ex Parte Neal et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2012

11584126 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS NEAL, ROBERT THROOP, and KEN ROBERTSON
____________

Appeal 2010-000204
Application 11/584,1261
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3-15, and 17-20. The Examiner indicates claims 2 and
16 include allowable subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

1 Application filed October 20, 2006. The real party in interest is Hewlett-
Packard Development Company, L.P. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2010-000204
Application 11/584,126

2
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a fan assembly for cooling a
computing device. (Spec. 1:4-6.)2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A fan assembly system for a computer, said fan assembly
system comprising:
a fan operable for cooling said computer; and
a fan duct coupled with said fan, wherein said fan duct
comprises:
a plurality of attaching features, wherein when said
fan assembly system is installed within said computer,
said fan is suspended over a component of said computer;
and
a hollow portion configured to convey air from the
fan toward the component;
wherein said suspended fan enables air to flow between
said fan and said component to facilitate cooling of said
component.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Chen (US Pat. 6,002,586).

2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”), Reply Brief (Reply Br.)
filed August 25, 2009, and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 23, 2009.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 29, 2009.
Appeal 2010-000204
Application 11/584,126

3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 9-12, 15, and 18-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kim (US Pat. Pub. 2007/0117502
A1 published May 24, 2007 (filed Nov. 22, 2005)).
3. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim and Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
4. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim and Wong (US Pat. Pub. 2005/0276015 A1).
5. The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Marquis (US Pat. 6,113,485)
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of representative claims 1, 9, and 15. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CLAIMS 1 AND 3-8
Issue
Under § 102, did the Examiner err in finding that Chen describes “a
hollow portion configured to convey air from the fan toward the
component,” within the meaning of independent claim 1?
Analysis
Appellants contend, inter alia, “Chen does not disclose a fan duct
coupled to fan 20, wherein the fan duct comprises a hollow portion
configured to convey air from fan 20.” (App. Br. 10.) Appellants further
emphasize that it is common knowledge that an air duct is a physical
structure that conveys air. (App. Br. 11.) According to Appellants, the
Appeal 2010-000204
Application 11/584,126

4
combination of the saddle 14 and bracket 16 disclosed in Chen, is a support
structure for mounting a fan 20, not a duct. (Id.)
The Examiner contends:
[T]he Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the
opening (30/32) in part of the duct (16) as well as the opening
in the other portion of the duct (14) clearly conveys air and
therefore forms a hollow portion configured to convey air from
the fan toward the component as claimed.
(Ans. 9.)
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to
claim 1. (Ans. 4.) As noted above, the Examiner broadly but reasonably
construed the claimed duct that has a hollow portion configured to convey
air from the fan toward the component, in light of Appellants’ Specification.
(Ans. 9). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In
re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). (Ans. 9.) As determined
by the Examiner, the saddle (14) and bracket (16) form an opening that
enables (conveys) air to flow from the fan 20 to the component 56, as
claimed. (Ans. 4.)
Appellants also contend that the saddle/bracket is not configured to
convey (i.e., to bear from one place to another) air flow produced by fan 20,
and Chen does not disclose or suggest an air duct. (Reply Br. 2.)
In line with the above discussion, we do not find Appellants’
argument – that the saddle/bracket combination is too short to convey air to
the component (Reply Br. 2-3) – to be persuasive. It is our view that the
length of the “duct” 12 disclosed in Chen does not preclude the flow of air
(the ability to convey air) from the fan to the component in accordance with
the Examiner’s construction.
Appeal 2010-000204
Application 11/584,126

5
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting representative claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and claims 3-8 which fall therewith.
CLAIMS 9-12
Issue
Under §102, did the Examiner err in determining that Kim discloses:
a fan assembly residing within said housing, wherein said
fan assembly comprises a Y-shaped fan duct that securely
suspends said fan assembly over at least one component of said
computer, wherein said suspended fan assembly facilitates
cooling by allowing air to flow through a region of space
between said suspended fan assembly and said at least one
component
(emphasis added), within the meaning of claim 9?
Analysis
Appellants initially argue that representative claim 9 recites a Y
shaped duct similar to claim 2 which is allowable. Therefore, claim 9 is
similarly allowable. (App. Br. 12.) We disagree.
Rather, we agree with the Examiner that dependent claim 2 depends
from independent claim 1, and therefore, claim 2 and independent claim 9
are of different scope. (See Ans. 10.) Thus, claim 9 isn’t allowable simply
because claim 2 is allowable, as argued by Appellants.
Appellants further contend that the fan duct 30 disclosed in Kim is not
Y shaped as recited in claim 9, but instead is rectangular in shape. (App. Br.
12.) We are in agreement with the Examiner that claim 9 does not specify
the perspective of the Y shape. (See Ans. 11-12.) Therefore, the duct 30 is
Y shaped when viewed from the perspective of Fig. 5, for example.
App
App

or a
share
and b
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Appellan
Y-shaped
a commo
Fi
Fi
se
du
Howeve
ottom) of
00204
/584,126
ts further
fan duct be
n base. (R
g. A of the
gure A (
ctional vi
ct (see Ki
r, we find
the duct 3
argue that
cause the
eply Br. 4
Examine
Ans. 11)
ew of Ki
m, Fig. 5).
that, as vie
0 share a c
6
duct 30 in
highlighte
.)
r’s Answe
depicts
m’s “Y-s

wed abov
ommon b
Kim does
d portions
r is reprod
a schema
haped” ad
e, the high
ase at the
not resem
shown be
uced below
tic side
justable
lighted po
exit 32. (K
ble a “Y”
low do no
:

rtions (top
im, Fig.

t

Appeal 2010-000204
Application 11/584,126

7
5.) Accordingly, we find that Kim discloses a duct that has a “Y-shaped”
outline (is “Y-shaped”) when viewed from the perspective shown in Fig. 5.
Finally, with respect to representative claim 9, Appellants also argue
that Kim fails to disclose a fan duct that suspends a fan over at least one
component of a computer. (App. Br. 12.) We disagree essentially for the
reasons set forth by the Examiner. (Ans. 5, 10-12.)
It is our view that the language of claim 9 requires that the fan
assembly is suspended over at least one component. (See Claim 9.) As
determined by the Examiner, Kim discloses a fan assembly (20/30)
suspended over component 8. (See Kim, Fig. 5 and Ans. 12.)
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting representative claim 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 9 and claims 10-12 which fall therewith.

CLAIMS 15 AND 18-20
Issue
Under § 102, did the Examiner err in determining that Kim discloses
a suspended fan assembly for cooling said computer,
wherein said suspended fan assembly has a Y-shaped fan duct
that attaches said suspended fan assembly to said first
component, wherein said attached suspended fan assembly is
suspended over and not in contact with said second component,
and wherein when a fan of said suspended fan assembly is
operating, airflow is directed through the space between said
second component and said suspended fan assembly to
facilitate cooling of said second component
(emphasis added), within the meaning of representative claim 15?

Appeal 2010-000204
Application 11/584,126

8
Analysis
Appellants contend:
Claim 15 recites, “a suspended fan assembly for cooling
said computer, wherein said suspended fan assembly has a Y-
shaped fan duct ... , wherein said attached suspended fan
assembly is suspended over and not in contact with said second
component.” As noted by the Examiner in his alternative
rejection of claim 15 as obvious over Kim in view of Marquis,
“Kim fails to specifically teach or suggest that the suspended
fan assembly is not in contact with said second component
(12).” Final Office Action, page 7. Moreover, as described
above with regard to claim 9, Kim does not teach or suggest
that fan assembly 20 is suspended over second component 12 or
that the disclosed fan duct is Y-shaped.
(App. Br. 14.)3
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
§102 rejection of claim 15. Specifically, the Examiner determined:
With respect to claim 15, Kim further teaches (In Fig 5) a
computer, comprising: a housing (4); a first component (Circuit
board adjacent 49,50) residing within said housing; a second
component (9) residing within said housing; a suspended fan
assembly (Comprising 20/30) for cooling said computer,
wherein said suspended fan assembly has a Y-shaped fan duct
(30) that attaches said suspended fan assembly to said first
component (Via 49, 50), wherein said attached suspended fan
assembly is suspended over (At least in part over) and not in
contact with said second component . . . .
(Ans. 6 (emphasis added).)
We agree with the Examiner that Figure 5 of Kim discloses the fan
assembly being at least partially over the second component 9 and not in

3 Appellants argue that Kim does not disclose a Y-shaped duct, as previously
argued regarding claim 9. (App. Br. 14.) This issue has been fully discussed
supra and will not be repeated here.
Appeal 2010-000204
Application 11/584,126

9
contact with the second component. As noted above, regarding the § 102
rejection of claim 15, the Examiner reads the claimed “first component” on
the circuit board adjacent (49, 50) and the claimed “second component” on
the circuit board (9). (See Ans. 6, Kim, Fig. 5.) Thus, we conclude that Kim
anticipates claim 15.
Moreover, as noted above, Appellants contend that the Examiner
admits that Kim does not disclose “that the suspended fan assembly is not in
contact with said second component (12).” (App. Br. 14 (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, it appears that Appellants did not address the Examiner’s
specific findings with respect to the § 102 rejection of claim 15. As
discussed supra in the §102 rejection of claim 15, the Examiner reads the
circuit board 9 on the claimed “second component”. Arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make have not been considered
and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In
re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting representative claim 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
§102 rejection of claim 15 and claims 18-20 which fall therewith.

OBVIOUNESS REJECTIONS
Regarding claim 15, the Examiner also makes an alternative rejection
of claim 15 as being obvious over Kim and Marquis. (Ans. 8.) We need not
specifically address the Examiner’s rejections of claim 15 under § 103.
“The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified
constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that
Appeal 2010-000204
Application 11/584,126

10
claim, except as to any ground specifically reversed.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(1).
Regarding the § 103 rejections of claims 13, 14, and 17, Appellants
essentially argue that the secondary references (AAPA, Wong, and Marquis)
do not cure the deficiencies of Kim. (App. Br. 14-15.) Thus, Appellants
have urged the patentability of claims 13, 14, and 17 based on the arguments
for independent claims 9 and 15 which were discussed above and not found
to be persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 13,
14, and 17 for the reasons discussed supra.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1 and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
9-12, 15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
13-15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-8 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b)
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-12, 15, and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-15 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-000204
Application 11/584,126

11
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

peb