Ex Parte Belady et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 14, 201311396809 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTIAN L. BELADY and BRADLEY D. WINICK ____________ Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Christian L. Belady and Bradley D. Winick (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, 13, 14, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1, 8, and 14 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and are reproduced below. 1. A server, comprising: a liquid cooling unit internal to the server to provide fault-tolerant cooling to the server when a cooling system connected to the server fails. 8. A server, comprising: two coolant converters located inside the server, wherein each coolant converter generates sufficient liquid cooling to cool heat generating components within the server. 14. A datacenter, comprising: at least one server; and first and second liquid cooling units providing liquid coolant to the server, wherein one of the first and second liquid cooling units is located inside the server, and when the first liquid cooling unit fails, the second liquid cooling unit sufficiently cools the server so the server does not overheat. References The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Belady US 2005/0061541 A1 Mar. 24, 2005 Minamitani US 2005/0082036 A1 Apr. 21, 2005 Rejection The Examiner makes the following rejection: Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 3 I. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belady and Minamitani. SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. OPINION The Examiner concluded that Belady and Minamitani render obvious the subject matter of claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, 13, 14, and 16. Ans. 4-6. The Examiner found that Belady discloses many of the elements of the claims except for “a liquid cooling unit internal to the server.” Id. at 4. The Examiner relied on Minamitani as disclosing “the use of a server cooling liquid cooling system disposed interior to a server with a pump 11, heat receiving jacket 8, heat radiating plate . . . and heat radiating pipe 9.” Id. The Examiner also concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “modify the server cooling system of Belady in view of Minamitani [] such that an internal liquid cooling system could be provided in order to cool the server in an efficient manner.” Id. Appellants raise several arguments directed toward different claims or groups of claims. We address each as presented in Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Claims 1 and 6 Appellants initially select claim 1 for discussion. App. Br. at 12. Appellants assert (1) that while Belady teaches external cooling modules that provide fault-tolerant cooling, it does not disclose an internal cooling module; (2) while Minamitani teaches an internal liquid cooling unit, it does Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 4 not teach or suggest fault-tolerant cooling; and (3) thus, “the combination of Belady and Minamitani fails to suggest that an internal liquid cooling unit would provide the fault-tolerant cooling when a cooling system connected to the server fails.” Id. at 12-13. Appellants’ arguments acknowledge that each element of the claim is disclosed in the combination of Belady and Minamitani. Appellants, however, argue that Belady lacks that which Minamitani discloses—an internal cooling unit—and that Minamitani lacks that which Belady discloses—fault-tolerant external cooling units. The Examiner, however, did not rely on Belady as disclosing an internal cooling unit and did not rely on Minamitani as disclosing fault-tolerant cooling units. See Ans. 4. Thus, Appellants’ arguments do not challenge the actual findings forming the basis of the rejection. Further, Appellants’ arguments reflect a classic example of arguing the references individually, rather than their combination. The Examiner’s rejection is based on obviousness, not anticipation. As such the failure of one reference to disclose each and every element of the claims is inapposite where a second reference discloses the missing element(s). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references”); see also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (same); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Belady and Minamitani Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 5 would have suggested fault-tolerant internal cooling units to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. See Ans. 4, 9. Accordingly, we do not find Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 persuasive. Claim 6 is not separately argued and depends from claim 1. Accordingly, we group claim 6 with claim 1 such that claim 6 stands or falls with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claim 2 Appellants contend that while Belady teaches that the cooling apparatus can include a reservoir, it “never suggests that this reservoir stores ‘extra coolant’ that is used by the server when the cooling system fails” as required by claim 2. App. Br. at 13. We agree with the Examiner that the reservoir of Belady’s fault- tolerant cooling unit stores “extra coolant”1 that “would be able to [be] utilized . . . when the cooling system fails.” Ans. 10. Belady discloses that the cooling module 510 may include “a reservoir.” Belady, para. [0047]. The Examiner determined that the reservoir would be sufficient to store “extra coolant.” Ans. 10. Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Belady’s fault-tolerant cooling system provides an additional cooling module that also stores “extra coolant.” See Ans. 10. Specifically, Belady discloses that “electronics module 700 may employ a first cooling module as a primary system and have the other cooling module available as a backup system.” Belady, para. 1 Appellants’ Specification equates “extra” with “more than is due, normal, or needed for operations.” See Spec., para. [0022] (“The coolant storage device 150 is a storage tank that stores extra fluid volume (i.e., more than is due, normal, or needed for operations) . . . .”). Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 6 [0051] (disclosing that the system can include “redundancy” that “could be employed in a fail-over system that included, for example, N cooling modules, N being an integer, to cool one or more electronics modules . . . . [and] may also include an additional cooling module, for a total of N+1 cooling modules. Thus, if a cooling module failed, the additional module could be brought on line.”). The coolant in Belady’s N+1 cooling module— the “additional cooling module”—is more than is normal or needed for operations and thus constitutes “extra coolant” that is used by the server when the cooling system fails. See Ans. 10. Accordingly, we do not find Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 2 persuasive. Claims 3 and 7 Appellants assert that while Belady teaches that the cooling apparatus can include a reservoir, “Belady never suggests that this reservoir stores ‘phase change material’ . . . . [and] never suggests that the reservoir is used to prolong runtime of the server when the cooling system connected to the server fails.”2 App. Br. 13-14. We agree with the Examiner that Belady discloses that the reservoir may store phase change material (e.g., water) and that the phase change material in the reservoir can be used to prolong runtime of the server when cooling to the server fails. See Ans. 5. The Examiner found, and we agree, that Belady discloses that the reservoir contains liquid and that liquid refers to a cooling fluid such as water. Id. at 10; see Belady, para. [0022] 2 Appellants chose claim 3 for discussion. App. Br. 13. Thus, we address Appellants’ arguments here in the context of claim 3. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009); see also, e.g., In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 7 (“‘Liquid’ as used herein refers to a cooling fluid like . . . water . . . .”) (emphasis added); id. at para. [0047] (“Internally, the cooling module 510 may include apparatus for receiving a liquid to be cooled (e.g., a reservoir . . . .”) (emphasis added). We also agree that it was well known in the art at the time of invention that water is a phase change material. Ans. 10; see Spec., para. [0026] (“Phase change materials exhibit a phase change and utilize energy to change phase. Such materials or compounds melt and/or solidify at certain temperatures in order to store or release energy. As an example, a thermal phase change material (example, ice to water . . . .”) (emphasis added). Further, as discussed supra, Belady discloses that the reservoir in the additional cooling module can be used in a “fail-over system” or, as used here, a “fault-tolerant” system to prolong the runtime of the server when the cooling system connected to the server fails. See, e.g., Belady, para. [0051] (“[I]f a cooling module failed, the additional module could be brought on line.”). Accordingly, we do not find Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 3 and 7 persuasive. Claim 4 Appellants contend that Belady does not disclose that the external cooling modules include “a pump, a heat exchanger and a storage device for storing extra fluid as recited in claim 4,” and does not disclose an internal cooling module. App. Br. 14. We agree with the Examiner that Belady discloses a pump, heat exchanger, and storage device for storing extra fluid. Ans. 5, 11; see, e.g., Belady, para. [0035] (“The cooling module 310 may be, for example, a heat exchanger . . . .”) (emphasis added); id. at para. [0047] (“Internally, the Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 8 cooling module 510 may include apparatus for receiving a liquid to be cooled (e.g., a reservoir, a chamber, a vacuum pump) . . . .”) (emphases added). Further, the Examiner relied on Minamitani as disclosing an internal cooling unit, and not Belady. See Ans. 4. Thus, Belady’s failure to disclose an internal cooling unit is inapposite. Accordingly, we do not find Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 4 persuasive. Claims 8, 11, and 13 Appellants raise nearly the same arguments with respect to claims 8, 11, and 13 as we addressed in the context of claims 1-4, 6, and 7.3 See App. Br. 14-15. Appellants, however, also assert that the combination of Belady and Minamitani fails to teach a server having two coolant converters located inside the server as required by claims 8, 11, and 13. Id. at 14-15. Addressing claim 8, we agree with the Examiner that Belady discloses at least two external coolant converters. See Ans. 12. As discussed supra, the Examiner combined Belady’s disclosure with Minamitani’s teaching of an internal cooling unit and determined that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place Belady’s coolant converters in the interior of the server “to achieve the benefit of a compact, portable and improved cooling device for a server with [the] additional benefit of fault toleran[ce].” Id. (further finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would 3 Appellants’ Specification equates “coolant converters” with “liquid cooling units” and thus the analysis as to whether the references disclose two internal coolant converters is analogous to whether the references disclose two internal coolant units as discussed supra. See Spec., para. [0017] (“The cooling system includes one or more coolant converters or liquid cooling units 103 for cooling one or more computers (such as computer racks or servers) in a data center 104.”). Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 9 have also been motivated to place duplicate or triplicate cooling modules or converters in the interior of a server to “achieve a benefit of an improved cooling system with an additional benefit of easier movement of the cooling system together with the server”). Accordingly, we do not find Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 8 persuasive. Claim 11 Appellants contend that claim 11 is allowable because Belady fails to teach or suggest (1) two internal coolant converters and (2) that each coolant converter includes a pump as required by claim 11. App. Br. 15. For the reasons expressed above regarding claim 8, we disagree with Appellants’ first contention. Additionally, as also discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Belady discloses that the cooling converters may each include a pump. Ans. 13 (citing Belady, para. [0047]). Accordingly, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Claim 13 Appellants assert that claim 13 is allowable because Belady fails to teach or suggest that the coolant converters are modular as required by claim 13. App. Br. 15. We disagree. Belady repeatedly discloses that its system employs a modular design, including modular liquid cooling converters. See, e.g., Belady, para. [0032] (“FIG. 3 illustrates an example system that employs liquid cooled electronics modules and liquid cooling modules in a modular system architecture.”) (emphases added); id. at para. [0038] (“FIG. 4 illustrates another example modular liquid cooled system architecture.”) (emphasis added); id. at para. [0045] (“Thus, an example modular nature of Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 10 a system architecture that employs liquid cooled system modules is revealed. An electronics module can be a ‘processing building block’ of a system and a cooling module can be a ‘heat dissipation building block’ of the system, where the building blocks can be independently designed and then detachably connected.”) (emphases added); id. at para. [0060] (“This modular design, which uses liquid cooled system modules, facilitates decoupling electronics module design and configuration from heat dissipation design and configuration . . . .”) (emphases added); id. at para. [0061] (“Once again this modular design that uses liquid cooled system modules . . . .”) (emphases added); id. at para. [0055] (“Rather than designing a single heat dissipater, however, a modular approach based on servicing liquid for the modular electronics components 900 through 908 may be taken. Thus, a cooling module 910 is illustrated . . . .”) (emphases added). Accordingly, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Claims 14 and 16 Appellants contend that claims 14 and 16 are allowable for the same reasons alleged with respect to claims 8, 11, and 13—that the combination of Belady and Minamitani fails to teach a server having two internal liquid cooling units. Id. at 15-16. For the reasons explained in the discussion of claims 8, 11, and 13 supra, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Further, with respect to claim 16, Appellants also contend that Belady fails to teach or suggest that one of the cooling units (1) would be located within the server and (2) “store extra coolant that is usable by the server after one of the first and second liquid cooling units fails.” App. Br. 16. Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 11 Appellants’ arguments are nearly identical to Appellants’ contentions regarding claim 2. Thus, for the reasons explained regarding claim 2 supra, we do not find Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 16 persuasive. Motivation to Combine In their Reply Brief, Appellants challenge the Examiner’s statement that “a server is nothing but a computer” and the Examiner’s finding of motivation to combine based on achieving the benefit of an improved and compact fault-tolerant cooling system with an additional benefit of easier movement. Reply Br. 2 (quoting Ans. 8). Appellants also assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to “add more cooling to the server in Belady . . . [because] [t]he server is already connected to two external cooling modules.” Id. Appellants further contend that the Examiner found motivation to provide “triplicate cooling” to the server in Belady, but that (1) “[t]here is no motivation or suggestion whatsoever for triplicate cooling” and (2) that “Belady actually teaches away from triplicate cooling” because it indicates that “two cooling modules are adequate to provide redundant, sufficient cooling to the server in the event one of the cooling modules fails.” Id. at 3. We disagree. First and foremost, the Examiner’s statement that a server is nothing but a computer was made in the context of discussing the teachings of Belady in response to Appellants’ arguments and did not form the basis of the Examiner’s rejection. Compare Ans. 4 with Ans. 8. Even if it had formed the basis of the Examiner’s rejection, Appellants have not apprised us of error such that we would find the claims non-obvious. Additionally, Belady and Minamitani are analogous art. “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 12 the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Here, Belady clearly discloses a server. See, e.g., Belady, para. [0040] (“For example, the scaleable electronics system may be a server . . . .”). And Minamitani discloses an “electronic apparatus,” examples of which include “a personal computer, a server, a workstation.” Minamitani, para. [0039]. Each reference also provides a solution for cooling an electronic apparatus, which is the particular problem to which the present application is addressed. Compare Minamitani, Title (“Cooling Device of Electronic Apparatus”) and Belady, Title (“Liquid Cooled System Module”) with Spec., Title (“Cooling System for Electrical Devices”). Thus, the art is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and is directed to the same problem. Accordingly, the Examiner’s statement equating a computer and server does not detract from the analysis relied upon for the rejection. Finally, we disagree that there is no motivation or suggestion for triplicate cooling and disagree that Belady teaches away from triplicate cooling.4 As discussed above, Belady specifically teaches N+1 cooling modules, where N is an integer. See Belady, para. [0051]. Thus, Belady 4 We note that the Examiner actually found motivation for “duplicate or triplicate” cooling. Ans. 9. Since Appellants do not contest motivation for duplicate cooling, which is uncontestably disclosed in Belady, we need not address Appellants’ argument regarding triplicate cooling. We do so, however, for completeness. Appeal 2010-012023 Application 11/396,809 13 clearly discloses multiple—including three—cooling units and does not teach away. Accordingly, because Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings, we sustain the rejection. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1362 (CCPA 1977) (explaining the burden shift to an appellant when the PTO satisfies its initial burden of proof). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, 13, 14, and 16. 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 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation