10836665 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Malone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 25, 2013

10836665 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER G. MALONE and GLENN C. SIMON ____________ Appeal 2011-012965 Application 10/836,665 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, WILLIAM A. CAPP and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-4, 7-20, 22-26 and 29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-012965 Application 10/836,665 - 2 - THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to computer equipment cooling systems. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An airflow control apparatus comprising: a controllable airflow resistance aligned with an airflow path of a plurality of airflow paths; a sensor that detects an airflow condition in at least one of the plurality of airflow paths; a controllable-speed fan coupled into an airflow path of the plurality of airflow paths; a controller coupled to the controllable airflow resistance and the sensor, the controller comprising a logic that controls the controllable airflow resistance in combination with the controllable-speed fan to manage airflow recirculation based on the airflow condition detected by the sensor; a plurality of controllable airflow resistances; and a plurality of fans coupled into multiple airflow pathways, the controller controllably coupled to the plurality of controllable airflow resistances and to the plurality of fans, and comprising a logic that determines an airflow recirculation condition based on the airflow condition and adjusts the controllable airflow resistances and the controlled-speed fans in combination, wherein the controller further comprising a logic that detects a recirculation condition and responds to the detected recirculation by reducing fan speed in at least one selected fan and increasing a selected airflow resistance. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Bistline Layne Grouell US 5,249,741 US 5,894,987 US 2002/0145853 A1 Oct. 5, 1993 Apr. 20, 1999 Oct. 10, 2002 Appeal 2011-012965 Application 10/836,665 - 3 - The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Grouell. 2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grouell and Layne. 3. Claims 8-11, 13-20, 22-26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grouell and Bistline. 4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grouell, Bistline and Layne. OPINION Anticipation by Grouell The Examiner finds that Grouell discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Ans. 4. In particular, the Examiner finds that closing airflow to a failing fan will inherently decrease fan speed. Id. Appellants traverse the rejection by arguing, among other things, that Grouell, in response to detecting a recirculation condition, fails to respond by both: (1) reducing fan speed in at least one selected fan; and (2) increasing a selected airflow resistance. App. Br. 10. We agree. Appellants’ invention cools computer equipment by passing airflow over components that radiate heat. The problem addressed by the invention relates to the inadvertent recirculation of heated air that occurs when a cooling fan fails and the intended flow of cooling air is consequently disrupted. Spec. 1-2. To solve this problem, Appellants control the flow of cooling air by performing a combination of two separate activities. The first activity is to reduce the speed of at least one fan. The second activity is to increase the Appeal 2011-012965 Application 10/836,665 - 4 - resistance on an airflow element such as a vent or valve. Clms. App’x., Spec. para. [0013] – [0016]. We agree with Appellants that the language in claim 1 directed to “adjust[ing] the controllable airflow resistances and the controlled-speed fans in combination” requires that both activities are performed together. The Examiner states that Grouell’s fan will inherently decrease or stop in combination with closing airflow to the failing fan. Ans. 9. We are not persuaded that this situation satisfies the language of the claim. As we interpret the claim, the system responds to the failure of one cooling fan by reducing the speed of another, operable fan in conjunction with redirecting airflow by closing a valve/vent. The Examiner erred by treating the failed and now inoperable fan as the fan that undergoes a reduction in speed. The Examiner also states that claim 1 does not require separate, individual actions of reducing fan speed and increasing a selected airflow resistance. Ans. 9-10. We do not think that the Examiner’s finding can be supported by the plain meaning of the claim language. For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 and neither do we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4 and 7 that depend therefrom. Unpatentability of Claims 3, 8-20, 22-26 and 29 The rejection of claim 3, which depends from claim 1, suffers from the same infirmity as the rejection of claim 1, which infirmity is not cured by the recited secondary reference of Layne. Clms. App’x. Claims 8, 14, 22 and 24 are independent claims that are substantially similar in scope to claim 1. Clms. App’x. As with claim 1, each of these respective independent claims requires combined action to both reduce fan Appeal 2011-012965 Application 10/836,665 - 5 - speed and increase airflow resistance. Id. Thus, the rejection of these claims suffer from the same infirmity as the rejection of claim 1, which infirmity is not cured by the respective, recited secondary references of Bistline and/or Layne. Claims 9-13, 15-20, 23, 25, 26 and 29 all depend from an independent claim that we have previously determined is not properly rejected in view of the infirmity related to combined actions of reducing fan speed and increasing airflow resistance. Once again, this infirmity is not cured by the respective, secondary references of Bistline and/or Layne. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the unpatentability rejection of claim 3, 8-20, 22-26 and 29. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4, 7-20, 22-26 and 29 is REVERSED. REVERSED Klh