Rong Long et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 26, 2019

14652485 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2019)

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.
14/652,485 06/16/2015 Rong Long A2000-7389US(APC-0463) 7278
79680 7590 07/26/2019
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
A2000
One Main Street, Suite 1100
Cambridge, MA 02142
EXAMINER
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2019 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):
CKent@LALaw.com
docketing@LALaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RONG LONG, QIANG MENG, and JIUJIAN NI1
____________________

Appeal 2018-007400
Application 14/652,485
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, and 13–19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Appeal Brief indicates that Appellant, Schneider Electric IT
Corporation, Inc., is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007400
Application 14/652,485
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a cooling unit and method. Claim 1,
reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A cooling unit comprising:
a housing having an interior region;
at least one fan configured to draw relatively warm air into
the interior region of the housing;
at least one heat exchanger comprising an inlet for
receiving coolant from a coolant supply and an outlet to exhaust
coolant to a coolant return;
an input line in fluid communication with the coolant
supply and the inlet of the heat exchanger, the input line located
upstream from the at least one heat exchanger;
an output line in fluid communication with the outlet of
the heat exchanger and the coolant return, the output line located
downstream from the at least one heat exchanger;
a first coolant temperature sensor coupled to the input line
and configured to measure a temperature of coolant in the input
line;
an air temperature sensor disposed proximate the at least
one heat exchanger and configured to measure a temperature of
air cooled by the cooling unit;
a humidity sensor located within the interior region of the
housing and configured to measure a humidity of the relatively
warm air as the relatively warm air is drawn into the interior
region of the cooling unit's housing;
a bypass line configured to allow fluid communication
from the input line to the output line, wherein the bypass line
includes a three-way valve, a bypass input, and a bypass output;
a transfer line comprising a transfer input coupled to the
output line at a position upstream from the bypass output, a
transfer output coupled to the input line at a position downstream
from the bypass input, and a pump configured to allow fluid
communication from the output line to the input line; and
a controller configured to operate the pump to control a
flow rate of coolant delivered by the transfer line from the output
Appeal 2018-007400
Application 14/652,485
3
line, via the transfer input, to the input line, via the transfer output
based on the temperature of coolant in the input line measured
by the first coolant temperature sensor and the humidity of the
relatively warm air drawn into the interior region of the cooling
unit's housing measured by the humidity sensor, and control, via
the three-way valve, a flow rate of coolant delivered by the
bypass line from the input line, via the bypass input located at a
position upstream from the transfer output, to the output line, via
the bypass output located at a position downstream from the
transfer input, based on the temperature of air cooled by the
cooling unit measured by the air temperature sensor.
Appeal Br. 10–11 (Claims App.).

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER

Rasmussen US 7,365,973 B2 Apr. 29, 2008
Feustel US 2012/0048954 A1 Mar. 1, 2012
Lowther US 2012/0193066 A1 Aug. 2, 2012
Campbell US 9,167,721 B2 Oct. 20, 2015

THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, and 13–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rasmussen, Campbell, Feustel, and Lowther.

OPINION
Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, and
13–19 as a group. Appeal Br. 6–9. We select claim 1 as representative of
the group, and claims 3, 7, 10, 11, and 13–19 stand or fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-007400
Application 14/652,485
4
The Examiner finds Rasmussen discloses a cooling unit with many of
the elements recited in claim 1, but Rasmussen’s cooling unit lacks the
required transfer line. Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner relies on the teachings
of Campbell to remedy this deficiency, finding that Campbell discloses
cooling unit 900 comprising transfer line (recirculation conduit) 1031. Id. at
5–6. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a transfer line as taught by Campbell
in the cooling unit disclosed by Rasmussen “in order to maintain the heat
exchanger below a dew point of the air thus preventing water contact with
the server components.” Id. at 7.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed
modification is inadequate because:
[a]s Rasmussen is focused on controlling the downstream
coolant capacity of a system (i.e., the coolant available to
downstream heat exchangers), one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been motivated to include the transfer line of
Campbell in the system of Rasmussen to provide the output of a
heat exchanger to the upstream input of the same heat exchanger
to control input coolant temperature, as such a combination
would improperly change the principle of operation established
in Rasmussen.
Appeal Br. 8–9.2 Thus, Appellant contends that Rasmussen is “focused” on
the coolant capacity of the downstream part of its system, the Examiner’s
proposed modification is based on addressing the input (upstream) portion of

2 Appellant does not challenge any of the Examiner’s findings of fact with
regard to the disclosures of Rasmussen, Campbell, Feustel, and Lowther.
See Appeal Br. 6–9. Nor does Appellant contest the Examiner’s reasoning
for the proposed modifications based on the teachings of Feustel and
Lowther.
Appeal 2018-007400
Application 14/652,485
5
the system, and, therefore the proposed combination would change the
principle of operation of Rasmussen’s cooling unit.
The Examiner responds by noting that Campbell uses transfer line
1031 to address the problem of excessively low temperatures in cooling
units. Ans. 3–4 (citing Campbell 13:1–21). The Examiner also finds that
Rasmussen implies awareness of the issue of excessive coldness by
disclosing condensate pan 134 to address the problem of dew formation. Id.
at 4. In the Examiner’s words, “Rasmussen treats the symptom [of an
excessively cold cooling unit] rather than the cause,” and “Campbell teaches
a cure for the cause to the symptom that troubled the device of Rasmussen.”
Id.
In reply, Appellant states:
It is precisely because Rasmussen is focused on
controlling the downstream coolant capacity of a system and
not concerned with controlling the temperature of the
incoming coolant that including the transfer line of Campbell in
the system of Rasmussen to provide the output of a heat
exchanger to the upstream input of the same heat exchanger to
control input coolant temperature, as alleged by Examiner
Zerphey, would improperly change the downstream capacity-
focused principle of operation of Rasmussen.
Reply Br. 3. Thus, Appellant reiterates the assertions from the Appeal Brief.
Appellant’s arguments are unavailing. First, we agree with the
Examiner that both Rasmussen and Campbell address the issue of an
excessively cold cooling unit, Rasmussen implies an awareness of the issue
by collecting condensate, and Campbell explicitly discloses controlling the
input temperature of the coolant to remain above room dew point
temperature. See Rasmussen Fig 4; Campbell 13:1–35. Appellant does not
address the Examiner’s findings regarding these points and instead merely
Appeal 2018-007400
Application 14/652,485
6
repeats, in the Reply Brief, that Rasmussen is focused on controlling the
downstream coolant capacity of a system and not concerned with controlling
the temperature of the incoming coolant. Reply Br. 3.
Second, even assuming, arguendo, that Rasmussen is “focused” on
control of downstream coolant capacity, this fact, by itself, would not
undermine the Examiner’s rationale for the proposed combination of
teachings. The Examiner finds that the proposed modification would
improve at least one aspect of the system disclosed by Rasmussen. Final
Act. 7. Appellant does not assert that the proposed modification would fail
to result in this improvement. See Appeal Br. 7–9. Further, the reason for
this improvement is explicitly taught by Campbell. See Campbell 13:1–21;
Abstract. Thus, the Examiner’s reasoning comes directly from the applied
prior art. It is not necessary that the Examiner proposed modification be a
solution to a problem on which Rasmussen is “focused.”
We also disagree with Appellant that the proposed combination would
improperly change the principle of operation established in Rasmussen. The
Examiner’s proposed modification merely adds functionality to the system
disclosed by Rasmussen. We see no reason this improvement to
Rasmussen’s system, which leaves intact Rasmussen’s existing function,
would amount to changing the principle of operation in Rasmussen.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1. Claims 3, 7, 10, 11, and 13–19 fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2018-007400
Application 14/652,485
7

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, and 13–19 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED