Ex Parte Rimler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

11251587 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111251,587 10/14/2005
37462 7590 06/23/2016
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
ONE MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Barry Rimler
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
A2000-703010(APC-0030) 5326
EXAMINER
BLANKENSHIP, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
docketing@LALaw.com
gengelson@LALaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRY RIMLER and NEIL RASMUSSEN
Appeal2014-004439
Application 11/251,5 87
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, BEYERL Y M. BUNTING, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants, Barry Rimler et al., appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-24 and 29-31. i, 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants identify the real party in interest as American Power
Conversion Corporation. Br. 3.
2 Claims 25-28 are cancelled. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-004439
Application 11/251,587
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a mobile data center. Claims 1, 11, and 17
are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A mobile data center comprising:
a trailer having a length greater than a width and having
an interior, the trailer being configured to be transported in a
direction generally parallel to the length;
a plurality of equipment enclosures installed in the interior
of the trailer to form a single row, with the row being parallel to
the length of the trailer, wherein the row is positioned in the
interior such that a first aisle is on a front side of the row and a
second aisle is on a back side of the row, with the first aisle
extending from a first side wall of the trailer to the single row,
and the second aisle extending from a second side wall of the
trailer to the single row, the first aisle and the second aisle each
having a width sufficient to enable an operator to access
equipment in the plurality of equipment enclosures, and wherein
each of the plurality of equipment enclosures includes equipment
configured to draw air directly from the first aisle and return air
directly to the second aisle; and
at least one cooling unit constructed and arranged to draw
air directly from the second aisle and provide air directly to the
first aisle.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Yoo
Bortell
Chu
Fink
US 6,394,523 Bl
US 6,783,164 B2
US 6,819,563 Bl
US 6,859,366 B2
2
May 28, 2002
Aug. 31, 2004
Nov. 16, 2004
Feb.22,2005
Appeal2014-004439
Application 11/251,587
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections in the Final Action,
dated April 12, 2011 ("Final Act."), from which this appeal is taken:
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bortell, Fink,
and Chu.
2. Claims 4, 7, 14, 16, 19, 22, and 29-31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bortell, Fink, Chu, and Yoo.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
OPINION
First Ground of Rejection
Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24
as a group. Br. 6-9. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and
claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The Examiner finds that Bortell discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 except for (1) "a single row of equipment enclosures," which is
taught by Chu, and (2) "drawing cool air directly from the first aisle and
returning air directly to the second aisle and the cooling unit drawing air
directly from the second aisle and providing air directly to the first aisle,"
which is disclosed by Fink. Final Act. 3--4.
Regarding the modification of Bortell with the teachings of Chu, the
Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious to "arrange the
equipment enclosures of Bortell into a single row of equipment racks, as
3
Appeal2014-004439
Application 11/251,587
taught by Chu ... to provide an alternative layout as miniaturization of
electronics allows for the same functions to be performed while using less
equipment racks." Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner further explained that
Chu [] teach[ es] forming electronic racks in a single row of
systems, as disclosed on lines 22-26 of column 6. When the
teaching of Chu [] is combined with the disclosure of Bortell, the
resulting trailer has a single row of equipment enclosures. The
reason to form the equipment enclosures in a single row is to
provide an alternate arrangement of the equipment enclosures
that allows for better space utilization of the trailer.
Ans. 2.
In response, Appellants argue, in part, that
With regard to the combination of Bortell and Chu, the
portion of Chu cited in the Office Action does not teach in any
way that two rows of equipment racks should be or could be
reduced to one row. The cited portion of Chu states "[a]s
previously discussed, in many data center servers or farms,
electronic rack systems, such as system 300 are arranged side-
by-side with minimal space between systems, creating one or
more rows of systems" (Chu, col. 6, lines 22-26, emphasis
added). Chu states that equipment racks may be in one or more
rows. Based on this statement in Chu, there is no reason for one
of ordinary skill to reduce the number of rows of equipment racks
in Bortell from two to one.
Br. 7. Appellants also argue that "[t]he Final Office Action has not provided
any support or reference for the apparent conclusion that the miniaturization
of electronics would have allowed two rows of racks of satellite
communication-related electronic components in Bortell to be replaced by
only one row." Br. 8.
Appellants' arguments are not responsive to the rejection as
articulated by the Examiner. As the Examiner explains, the reason one of
4
Appeal2014-004439
Application 11/251,587
ordinary skill in the art would use one row of equipment is to allow
"alternate arrangements of the equipment" and allow "for better space
utilization of the trailer" (Ans. 2), and "us[ e] less equipment racks" (Final
Act. 4). Notably, Appellants do not contest that using one row of equipment
would allow for better space utilization. We find support for the Examiner's
reasoning in Chu itself, which teaches that it is desirable to arrange
equipment "to conserve floor space." Chu 1 :49--51 ("Many such server
frames may be placed within a single room or data center, often in close
proximity to one another to conserve floor space."). The Examiner has
demonstrated that a design incentive to use floor space efficiently would
have prompted a predictable variation of Bortell's layout to change two rows
of equipment to one row. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007) ("When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. ") Appellants have
not shown how the Examiner's articulated reasoning lacks rational
underpinnings or how the Examiner erred in making the proposed
combination. Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
Appellants also argue that "[ n ]one of the cited references provides any
teaching of how one could have reduced two rows of equipment racks to one
row while achieving the same functions." Br. 7-8. Chu, however, discloses
no difficulty cooling electronic equipment located in a single row. See e.g.,
Chu 6:22-26, Abstract. Despite Chu's teachings to cool electronic
equipment in one row, Appellants do not provide evidence or explanation to
5
Appeal2014-004439
Application 11/251,587
support their contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
know how to do so.
Thus, Appellants' argument does not apprise us of error by the
Examiner. Appellants' arguments with regard to Bortell and Chu are
unconvmcmg.
With regard to the further modification of Bortell with the teachings
of Fink, Appellants argue:
The manner in which cooling is provided to the components 110
is not described in Bortell, and it is not apparent that the
components 110 could be arranged to draw air from the first aisle
and return air to the second aisle as suggested in the Final Office
Action. Further, Fink does not provide any teaching of how to
arrange satellite communications-related electronic components
to achieve this air flow. Still further, if the first aisle and the
second aisle of Bortell modified by Chu were isolated, it is not
apparent that the components 110 of Bortell would be properly
cooled.
Br. 8. Appellants also assert that "[i]t is not clear from the Final Office
Action or the references how to achieve this modification, and it is not
apparent that the components could function as intended with proper cooling
were it possible to modify Bortell as suggested." Br. 8.
Appellants' argument, however, does not address the Examiner's
finding that Fink, not Bortell, discloses how to deliver cooling air between
the first and second aisles:
Fink discloses a data center cooling system with a plurality of
equipment enclosures (18) that each draw air directly from a first
aisle and return air to a second aisle (22) from which the cooling
unit directly draws air before providing air directly to the first
aisle, as shown in Figures 2 and 3.
6
Appeal2014-004439
Application 11/251,587
Final Act. 3. Similarly, Appellants' argument does not address the
Examiner's reasoning that it would have been obvious to
configure each of the equipment enclosures of Bortell to
draw air directly from the first aisle and return air directly to the
second aisle, as taught by Fink, while the cooling unit of Bortell
draws air directly from the second aisle and providing air directly
to the first aisle, as taught by Fink, to cool the equipment in a
more efficient and less expensive manner.
Final Act. 4. Thus, Appellants' argument is not responsive to the rejection
as articulated by the Examiner. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.").
Moreover, Fink discloses no difficulty cooling electronic equipment
by moving and cooling air between first and second aisles, as recited in
claim 1. Despite Fink's teachings to move and cool air between first and
second aisles, Appellants do not provide evidence or explanation to support
their contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know
how to do so. See, e.g., Fink Abstract, 8:25--44. Thus, Appellants'
argument does not apprise us of error by the Examiner and is unconvincing.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) in view of Bortell, Chu, and Fink. Because Appellants do not
allege any other patentable distinctions for claims 2-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 17,
18, 20, 21, 23, and 24, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejections of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
7
Appeal2014-004439
Application 11/251,587
Second Ground of Rejection
For claims 4, 7, 14, 16, 19, 22, and 29--31, Appellants argue that "[a]s
discussed above [in addressing the First Ground of Rejection], the proposed
combination of Bortell, Fink and Chu is improper, and the addition of Yoo
does not cure the problems with the combination." Br. 9. For the reasons
discussed above, Appellants' argument regarding these claims is not
persuasive. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 7, 14, 16, 19,
22, and 29-31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view ofBortell, Chu, Fink, and
Yoo.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-
13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
Bortell, Chu, and Fink is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 7, 14, 16, 19, 22, and 29--31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view ofBortell, Chu, Fink, and Yoo 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) (2015).
AFFIRMED
8