Ex Parte Reiss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12995220 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
12/995,220 05/16/2011 Matthias Reiss WUE-158A-116 8793
26875 7590 03/02/2017
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
TANENBAUM, TZVI SAMUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHIAS REISS, WILSON WILLY CASAS NORIEGA, and
SEBASTIAN ROERING
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
Technology Center 3700
Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 15—32. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 “The real party in interest is Airbus Operations GmbH.” (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants’ invention “relates to the cooling of an electronic
device in an aircraft by means of a coolant.” (Spec. 1,11. 5—6.)
Illustrative Claim2
15. A method for cooling an electronic device in an aircraft,
comprising:
circulating a coolant in a coolant circuit,
cooling the electronic device by the coolant, and
in an aircraft outer-shell heat exchanger, emitting the heat
taken up by the coolant, wherein:
during normal operation, the coolant is permanently in a
liquid phase and circulates in the coolant circuit by forced
convection
when a malfunction occurs, the coolant evaporates, at
least partially, during the cooling of the electronic device,
condenses in the aircraft outer-shell heat exchanger, and
circulates in the coolant circuit by natural convection, and
during an increased cooling demand, the coolant
evaporates, at least partially, during the cooling of the
electronic device, condenses in the aircraft outer-shell heat
exchanger, and circulates in the coolant circuit by natural
convection.
Evidence
Erbe US 3,196,939 July 27, 1965
Heilig US 4,476,922 Oct. 6, 1984
Fluegel US 5,702,073 Dec. 30, 1997
Malhammar US 5,966,957 Oct. 19, 1999
Scaringe US 6,205,803 B1 Mar. 27, 2001
Hood US 6,837,063 B1 Jan. 4, 2005
Wei US 6,925,829 B2 Aug. 9, 2005
Ghoshal US 7,131,286 B2 Nov. 7, 2006
Matsushima US 7,149,084 B2 Dec. 12, 2006
Uluc US 7,697,292 B2 Apr. 13,2010
2 This illustrative claim is quoted from the Claims Appendix (“Claims
App.”) set forth on pages 20-24 of the Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 15, 19, 23, 26—29, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fluegel, Uluc, Matsushima, and
Malhammar. (Final Action 2, Adv. Act. 2.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 16, 17, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fluegel, Uluc, Matsushima, Malhammar, and
Scaringe. (Final Action 8.)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 18 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fluegel, Uluc, Matsushima, Malhammar, and
Erbe. (Final Action 12.)
IV. The Examiner rejects claims 24, 25, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fluegel, Uluc, Matsushima, Malhammar, and
Wei and Ghoshal. (Final Action 13.)
ANAFYSIS
Claims 15 and 19 are the independent claims on appeal, with the rest
of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 16—18 and 20-32) depending therefrom.
(See Claims App.)
Independent Claims 15 and 19
Independent claims 15 and 19 each recite a “coolant,” a “coolant
circuit” in which the coolant circulates, and an “electronic device” that is
cooled by the coolant. (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Fluegel
discloses a cooling device comprising a coolant, a coolant circuit, and an
electronic device that is cooled by the coolant. (See Final Action 2—3.)
Independent claims 15 and 19 also recite that, “during normal
operation,” the coolant circulates in the coolant circuit “by forced
3
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
convection,” and “when a malfunction occurs,” the coolant circulates in the
coolant circuit “by natural convection.” (Claims App.) The Examiner finds
that Fluegel contemplates a single circuit wherein liquid coolant is circulated
“via [a] pump,” and liquid coolant is also circulated “via thermosiphon
action.” (Adv. Act. 1; see also Final Action 2—5.) Fluegel discloses that
“[l]iquid coolant is circulated through the heat exchange module 10 with a
pump, or alternatively, thermosyphon action may be used to circulate the
coolant.” (Fluegel, col. 5,11. 15—17.)
The Appellants argue that Fluegel describes pump-driven circulation
(i.e., forced convection) and thermosyphon-action circulation (i.e., natural
convection) “as ‘alternatives’ which implies that one or the other is chosen,
not both methods.” (Appeal Br. 7.) According to the Appellants, “[t]here is
simply no indication anywhere” that “both methods can be used with the
same circuit.” (Id.) The Appellants also assert that, except for the above-
cited sentence, there is “no further description or even any other mention of
this alternative ‘thermosyphon action’ anywhere in Fluegel.” (Id.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner also
cites (see Answer 2) to the following paragraph in Fluegel:
Referring now to FIGS. 2 and 3, liquid heated coolant
enters heat exchange module 10 through an inlet manifold 12,
passes through heat exchange tube 14, and exits the module
through outlet manifold 16. The heat exchange tube 14 is
typically fabricated from aluminum, copper, steel, brass or alloys
thereof and may be cylindrical in cross section or may have
flattened sides due to heat transfer considerations. Typically, heat
exchange tube 14 will be arranged in a number of tube passes as
determined by the desired level of heat transfer, available space
and other considerations. The tube passes may be parallel in
which case each tube pass turns 180° or alternatively the tube
passes may turn less than 180° to provide a continuously
4
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
downsloping path to aid in draining the heat exchange tube and
to facilitate thermosyphon action.
(Fluegel, col. 4,11. 1—15, emphasis added.) Hence, Fluegel does indeed
indicate, further describe, and additionally mention thermosyphon action.
The Appellants do not address (see Reply Br. 2—5) why this additional
disclosure in Fluegel does not support the Examiner’s finding that Fluegel
“teaches a single coolant circuit that alternatively uses both forced
convection by a pump and natural convection” (Answer 3). As such, the
Appellants do not adequately establish that the Examiner errs in making this
finding.3
The Appellants also argue that “the single circuit actually disclosed in
detail” in Fluegel (i.e., the coolant circuit shown in Figure 5) “is not
designed or constructed to switch between forced and natural convection.”
(Appeal Br. 8.) According to the Appellants, Fluegel’s illustrated coolant
circuit “cannot use natural convection because the pump 50, in an inactive
state, would block the necessary flowpath for coolant moving through the
circuit as a result of density changes.” (Appeal Br. 7.) The Appellants
contend that Fluegel’s coolant circuit “would need to have the pump 50
removed entirely, or some other structural redesign to enable the same
circuit to use natural convection circulation.” (Id. )
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner’s
rejection is not based upon Fluegel’s teachings alone, but rather relies upon
Fluegel, Matsushima, and Malhammar together teaching “a single coolant
3 Also, as noted by the Appellants, Hood provides a “teaching of a single
circuit using forced convection in one cooling mode and natural convection
in another cooling mode.” (Appeal Br. 11.)
5
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
circuit that alternatively uses both forced convection by a pump and natural
convection.” (Answer 3; see a Iso Final Action 4—6.) The Appellants do not
address why, in view of the combined teachings of these references, a
coolant circuit accommodating both a pump and natural convection would
not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We note that
Matsushima teaches that a coolant circuit can be adapted to bypass a
malfunctioning pump, thereby preventing the pump from blocking the
coolant’s flowpath. (See Matsushima, Fig. 3.)
As indicated above, independent claims 15 and 19 recite that the
coolant circulates “by natural convection” when “a malfunction occurs.”
(Claims App.) As also indicated above, the Examiner’s rejection relies upon
the combined teachings of Fluegel, Matsushima, and Malhammar. The
Examiner finds that 1) Fluegel teaches a single circuit wherein the coolant is
circulated via a pump, and the coolant is also circulated via thermosiphon
action; 2) Matsushima teaches the value of a redundant coolant flowpath
bypassing a pump should the pump malfunction; and 3) Malhammar teaches
utilizing thermosyphon action to circulate a coolant when cooling an
electronic component. (See Final Action 3—5.)
The Examiner determines that, in FluegeFs coolant circuit, “a natural
convection circulation system (i.e. thermosyphon action)” could be “utilized
as a redundant cooling system with the motivation of ensuring the
circulation a coolant despite a pump malfunction or increased cooling
demand on the pump.” (Final Action 5.)4 The Examiner explains that the
4 Independent claims 15 and 19 also recite that the coolant circulates by
natural convection “during an increased cooling demand.” (Claims App.)
The Examiner finds that “one of ordinary skill would understand and
6
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
motivation would be “obtaining a redundant system without, for example,
duplicating the expensive or unreliable pumps.” (Adv. Act. 2.) In other
words, one of ordinary skill would do this to “avoid[] the expense of
utilizing duplicate pumps by utilizing well known thermosyphon action.”
{Id.)
The Appellants argue that neither Matsushima nor Malhammar teach
“a cooling system with two types of convection being used to flow the
coolant.” (Appeal Br. 10.) According to the Appellants, Matsushima
discloses only forced convection, and Malhammar discloses only natural
convection. (See id. at 10-11.) The Appellants also argue that Matsushima
would “at most, suggest repeating the pump used” when Fluegel uses forced
convection to move the liquid coolant. {Id.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner can rely
upon Fluegel to teach a cooling system with two types of convection being
used to flow the coolant.* * * * 5 And, as discussed above, the Appellants do not
establish that the Examiner errs in this regard. Also, the Examiner relies
upon Matsushima to teach the value of allowing a flowpath to bypass a
malfunctioning pump, rather than a bodily incorporation of Matsushima’s
dual-pump arrangement into Fluegel’s coolant circuit. And the Appellants
acknowledge that “one of ordinary skill may have been able to rely on
recognize that pumps may be in trouble due to an increased cooling
demand.” (Final Action 4.) In other words, the Examiner’s findings
regarding a situation involving a malfunctioning pump likewise apply to a
situation involving an increased cooling demand.
5 Also, Hood provides a “teaching of a single circuit using forced convection
in one cooling mode and natural convection in another cooling mode.”
(Appeal Br. 11.)
7
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
Matsushima to provide a motivating factor in adding redundancy to the
system in Fluegel.” (Appeal Br. 10.)
Independent claims 15 and 19 further recite that, when the
malfunction occurs and coolant is circulating by natural convection, the
coolant “evaporates” and “condenses.” (Claims App.) As discussed above,
the Examiner finds that Malhammar teaches utilizing thermosyphon action
to circulate a coolant when cooling an electronic component. (See Final
Action 5.) The Examiner also finds that Malhammar describes
thermosyphon circulation wherein “the coolant evaporates” and “[t]he
coolant condenses.” (Id.)
The Appellants argue that Fluegel does not “disclose or imply that
evaporation of the liquid coolant is occurring within the coolant circuit, even
if the thermosyphon action were used.” (Appeal Br. 14.) According to the
Appellants, “a thermosyphon action or effect can be enabled using a single
phase liquid coolant,” and “[t]he only way to achieve the benefits described
throughout Fluegel is to use a liquid single phase coolant.” (Id.) The
Appellants contend that “one of ordinary skill in the art would be led away
from the modifying the system of Fluegel into a two phase system.” (Id.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner relies
upon Malhammar, not Fluegel, to “demonstrate[] that it is known in the art
that two-phase thermosiphon circuits are routinely used to cool electronic
circuits.” (Answer 5; see also Malhammar, col. 1,11. 16-43.) And although
the Appellants direct our attention to disclosure in Fluegel which discusses a
liquid coolant, they do not point, with particularity, to disclosure in Fluegel
which criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation of two-
phase coolants. (See Answer 5.) In view of the above, the Appellants do not
8
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
establish that the Examiner errs in determining that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have inferred that a two-phase coolant could be employed to
cool the electronic component in Fluegel’s system when natural convection
is utilized to circulate the coolant.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 15
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fluegel, Uluc,
Matsushima, and Malhammar (Rejection I).
Dependent Claims 16—18 and 20—31
The Appellants do not argue dependent claims 23 and 26—29
separately from independent claims 15 and 19. (See Appeal Br. 15). With
respect to dependent claims 16—18, 20-22, 24, 25, 30, and 31, the Appellants
argue only that the additional prior art references (i.e. Scaringe, Erbe, Wei,
Ghoshal) do not overcome the alleged deficiencies in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 15 and 19. (See Appeal Br. 16—18.) As
discussed above, the Appellants do not adequately establish that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 15 and 19 is deficient. As such,
dependent claims 16—18 and 20-31 fall with independent claims 15 and 19.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 23 and
26—29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fluegel, Uluc,
Matsushima, and Malhammar (Rejection I); we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 16, 17, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fluegel, Uluc, Matsushima, Malhammar, and Scaringe
(Rejection II); we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 18
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fluegel, Uluc,
Matsushima, Malhammar, and Erbe (Rejection III); and we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 24, 25, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
9
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fluegel, Uluc, Matsushima, Malhammar, and
Wei or Ghoshal (Rejection IV).
Dependent Claim 32
Dependent claim 32 recites the step “automatically shifting between
forced convection and natural convection within the coolant circuit when
normal operation begins or ends.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The
Examiner finds that Matsushima teaches maintaining coolant circulation
when a pump stops functioning. (See Final Action 4.)
The Appellants argue that Matsushima is the only reference that
“switches operating modes based on a malfunctioning pump” and that, in
Matsushima, “the operating mode changes from forced convection by two
pumps to forced convection by one pump.” (Appeal Br. 15.) According to
the Appellants, there is no teaching in the prior art that “leads to an
automatic shifting between forced convection and natural convection when
normal operation begins or ends.” (Id. at 15—16.)
We are not persuaded by this argument because it does not take into
account what would occur in the modified version of Fluegel’s coolant
circuit when the pump malfunctions and natural convection is utilized to
circulate the coolant. As acknowledged by the Appellants, the prior art (i.e.,
Matsushima) teaches switching to another operating mode upon
malfunctioning of a pump; and, in Fluegel’s modified circuit (i.e., modified
in view of the teachings of Matsushima and Malhammar), this other
operating mode would be natural convection. As such, the Appellants do
not establish that the Examiner errs in finding that, in Fluegel’s modified
circuit, “as the coolant bypasses the pump (wherein pumping coolant is
10
Appeal 2015-001623
Application 12/995,220
defined as a normal operation), natural convection is automatically shifted
to, and vice versa.” (Answer 6.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fluegel, Uluc, Matsushima,
and Malhammar (Rejection I).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 15—32.
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).
AFFIRMED
11