Ex Parte Pflueger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 2, 2014

11772307 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN PFLUEGER
____________________

Appeal 2011-011496
Application 11/772,307
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: STEFAN STAICOVICI, JILL D. HILL, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011496
Application 11/772,307

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2, 4-6, 9, 10, and 14-16. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method of thermal
management for a rack mounted information handling system. Claims 1 and
10 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A thermal management system for managing heat generated
by information handling systems, the thermal management
system comprising:
plural information handling systems disposed to form one
or more cooling aisles and one or more exhaust aisles, each
information handling system having a cooling airflow intake
exposed to the one or more cooling aisles for accepting cooling
airflow and having a cooling airflow exhaust exposed to the one
or more exhausting aisles for exhausting the cooling airflow;
an air conditioner operable to generate a cooling airflow,
the air conditioner having an exhaust interfaced with the one or
more cooling aisles to provide the cooling airflow to the
information handling system cooling airflow intakes and having
an intake interfaced with the one or more exhausting aisles to
accept airflow from the information handling system cooling
airflow exhausts; and
one or more bypass cooling modules disposed proximate
the information handling systems, the one or more bypass
cooling modules forming an air channel, the air channel
providing unassisted airflow from the one or more exhausting
aisles to the one or more cooling aisles.

Appeal 2011-011496
Application 11/772,307

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Smith
Bash
Brey
US 2005/0083651 A1
US 2006/0272342 A1
US 2008/0300725 A1
Apr. 21, 2005
Dec. 7, 2006
Dec. 4, 2008

REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Brey.
Ans. 4-5.
Claims 2, 4-6, 10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brey and Bash. Ans. 6-11.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Brey and Smith. Ans. 11-12.1

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection: Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Brey discloses a thermal management system
for an information handling system having each of the required limitations
of claim 1, including one or more bypass modules forming an air channel
providing unassisted airflow (35, 36, 37 or 38) from one or more exhausting
aisles 26 to one or more cooling aisles. Ans. 5, citing Brey, paras. [0027],
[0028]; fig. 1. Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because Brey fails to
teach, disclose or suggest a “bypass cooling module” that provides airflow

1 Appellant does not argue this rejection in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, the
rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable under §103(a) is summarily affirmed.
Appeal 2011-011496
Application 11/772,307

4
from the exhausting aisle to the cooling aisle. App. Br. 3. According to
Appellant, the airstreams 35, 36, 37 and 38 relied on by the Examiner do not
have the structure of a module because the air flows through empty
component bays. App. Br. 3. Explaining further, Appellant asserts the
“empty component bays of Brey have no structure, they are simply empty”.
Reply Br. 1.
The Examiner reasonably explains how the walls which form the
empty component bays within the racks of Brey provide sufficient structure
to be considered bypass modules. As the Examiner correctly points out,
claim 1 does not recite specific structural features for the bypass module,
other than the functional limitations regarding forming an air channel for
providing the unassisted airflow between the exhaust and cooling aisles.
Ans. 12. Further, in giving the claim term “bypass module” the broadest
reasonable construction as we must, the empty component bays within the
rack system of Brey provide sufficient structure to meet the disputed claim
limitation of a bypass module as recited in claim 1.2
For these reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that the empty component bays within the rack system of
Brey form an air channel for providing unassisted airflow from one or more
exhausting aisles to one or more cooling aisles. As such, the rejection of
claim 1 is sustained.

2 During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2011-011496
Application 11/772,307

5

Obvious Rejection: Claims 2, 4-6, 10, and 14-16
Appellant separately argues claims 10, 2, and 6.3 Claim 10 is similar
to claim 1, and is directed towards a method for thermal management of
information handling systems. The Examiner finds that the system of Brey
performs the method of claim 10, because “[t]he air passively flows from the
exhaust aisle (26) through the bypass modules to the cooling aisle because
the air flow through the bypass modules occurs due to the pressure
difference between the exhaust and cooling aisle caused by the operation of
the fans on the information handling systems (30).” Ans. 8-9, citing Brey,
para. [0028]; fig. 1. Relying on Bash to disclose a thermal exchange device
(116a-116n) disposed within the air channel and operable to extract thermal
energy from an airflow, the Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to a skilled artisan to modify the bypass cooling module of Brey to
include the thermal exchange device of Bash “to maintain the information
handling systems, which have been cooled by airflow from the cooling aisle
to the exhaust aisle, at an acceptably cool temperature.” Ans. 6-7, citing
Bash, paras. [0026] and [0027].
Appellant contends that Brey expressly teaches away from the
Examiner’s proposed combination “by trying to reduce or eliminate air
recirculation”. App. Br. 4. According to Appellant, Brey considers air
recirculation as a problem to be avoided, and not a “technique”. Reply Br.
1. Appellant further contends that one of skill in the art aware of the
teachings of Brey “would hardly be motivated to create such an anomaly by

3 Since Appellant does not provide any argument addressing claims 4, 5,
and 14-16, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, and 14-16 is summarily
affirmed.
Appeal 2011-011496
Application 11/772,307

6
disposing a bypass module among information handling systems and
extracting thermal energy from the bypass module”. Reply Br. 1-2.
We have carefully considered Appellant’s contention that Brey
regards air recirculation as a problem to be avoided and not a technique, and
do not find Appellant’s position convincing. Brey recognizes that
temperature variations due to air recirculation will occur for various reasons,
such as rack placement, obstructions, or leaving off blank filler panels, and
provides a system and method for detecting and analyzing potentially
elevated temperatures. See Brey paras. [0005]- [0007], [0028], Abst. As our
reviewing courts have held, prior art does not teach away from claimed
subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem
unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the
solution claimed.4 Appellants do not adequately explain how Brey
criticizes, discredits or discourages air recirculation. The Examiner has the
better position and correctly points to the disclosure in Brey describing how
the air recirculation occurs due to the flow of air from the back of the rack
through the empty compartment bays to the front of the rack as required by
claim 10. Ans. 13, citing Brey, para. [0028]. While the teachings of Brey
may focus on detecting and identifying elevated airflow temperatures as
compared to the focus of the invention of claim 1 on managing airflow
temperatures, our reviewing courts have also held that it is not necessary for
the prior art to serve the same purpose as that disclosed in Appellants’

4 See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2011-011496
Application 11/772,307

7
Specification in order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious.5
Appellant further contends that neither Brey nor Bash teach, disclose
or suggest “extracting thermal energy from the cooling air as it flows
through the bypass module.” App. Br. 4. Appellant’s contentions are not
persuasive because nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures.6 Moreover, our reviewing courts have held that
there is no requirement of an express teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
combine known elements to establish obviousness.7 Appellant does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s proffered conclusion that the combined
teachings of Brey and Bash disclose “extracting thermal energy from the
cooling air as it flows through the bypass module,” as called for by claim 10.
See Ans. 13.
For these reasons, the rejection of claim 10 is sustained.
Appellant’s separate arguments regarding claims 2 and 6 rest on the
same contentions as provided with respect to claim 10. App. Br. 4. Because
Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
10, Appellant likewise does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claims

5 See In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972). “A reference may be
read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.” In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012), citing KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-421 (2007).
6 See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
7 See KSR, 550 U.S. at 398, 418-19. See also KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)

Appeal 2011-011496
Application 11/772,307

8
2 and 6 for the reasons provided supra. As such, the rejection of claims 2
and 6 is sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4-6, 9, 10, and 14-16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw