QUANTA COMPUTER INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021004751 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

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. 15/944,165 04/03/2018 Chao-Jung CHEN 077369-107001USPT 3640 143588 7590 03/01/2022 Nixon Peabody LLP 799 Ninth Street NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20001 EXAMINER DAVIS, JASON GREGORY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3745 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): ipairlink@nixonpeabody.com nppatent@nixonpeabody.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHAO-JUNG CHEN, YU-NIEN HUANG, CHING-YU CHEN, and KUAN-HSIANG LIAO Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 Technology Center 3700 Before BRETT C. MARTIN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Quanta Computer, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to “cooling fan assemblies, and more specifically to cooling fan assemblies with anti-reverse flow features.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A cooling fan assembly, comprising: a housing having an inlet and an outlet, the housing comprising a shroud panel, the shroud panel disposed at the outlet; an axial fan disposed in the housing, the axial fan configured to draw air form the inlet and push air to the outlet; and wherein the shroud panel comprises a plurality of opening, each opening of the plurality of opening defined by an area bounded by edges of the shroud panel surrounding a cutout portion in the shroud panel, the plurality of openings being annularly arranged in the shroud panel and disposed along an airflow path of the axial fan; a plurality of vanes arranged annularly of the shroud panel; each vane of the plurality of vanes separated from each other by one of the cutout portion in the shroud panel; and a plurality of flaps, each flap in the plurality of flaps being associated with a pivot, and each flap being pivotably attached with its pivot to a vane in the plurality of vanes; each flap in the plurality of flaps being associated with at least one of the cutout portions and configured to cover its associated cutout portion in the shroud panel when the flap is in a closed position and block airflow through the cutout portion in the shroud panel; each of the cutout portions which form the openings in the shroud panel being of area smaller than its associated flap,2 2 Notably, the “Summary of Claimed Subject Matter” section of the Appeal Brief does not provide support from the Specification for the claim Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 3 such that the associated flap, when in its closed position, covers its associated cutout portion in the shroud panel and blocks airflow through the cutout portion in the shroud panel; wherein each of the plurality of flaps is configured to alternate between at least a first, open position extending away from the shroud panel and a second, closed position blocking one of the plurality of cutout portions in the shroud panel, and wherein each flap of the plurality of flaps is configured to extend across an associated one of the plurality of openings while in the second, closed position to cover the opening and block airflow through the cutout portion in the shroud. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Davis US 6,386,828 B1 May 14, 2002 Maeda US 7,025,086 B2 Apr. 11, 2006 Shih US 9,777,736 B2 Oct. 3, 2017 Kobayashi US 10,408,218 B2 Sept. 10, 2019 Palau 3 ES 2,234,248 June 16, 2005 REJECTIONS4 I. Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. II. Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. limitation, “each of the cutout portions which form the openings in the shroud panel being of area smaller than its associated flap.” Appeal Br. 2-3. 3 We rely on the machine translation present in the record. 4 The Examiner’s objections to Appellant’s Specification, drawings, and claims are not before us on appeal. Final Act. 5-6. Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 4 III. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, Palau, and Shih. IV. Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, Palau, Shih, and Kobayashi. V. Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda, Palau, Shih, and Davis. OPINION Rejection I Independent claims 1 and 8 recite, “each of the cutout portions which form the openings in the shroud panel being of area smaller than its associated flap.” Appeal Br. 16-17, 19-20 (Claims App.). Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, the Examiner finds that the claim limitation, “each of the cutout portions . . . being of area smaller than its associated flap,” lacks written description support from Appellant’s Specification. Final Act. 7-8. In particular, the Examiner finds that although the Specification discusses flaps and cutout portions, the Specification fails to “describe the ‘area’ of the cutout portions being smaller than the area of the flaps,” nor do the Specification’s Figures (i.e., Figures 2B and 3B), “explicitly show the claimed relative dimensions.” Id. at 7-8. The Examiner finds that, at best, Appellant’s Specification discloses that “the flaps appear to correspond with the cutout portions in the radial and circumferential directions.” Id. at 8. Appellant argues that because the Specification discloses that the flaps are “configured to cover” cutout portions on the shroud panel, the cutout portions “must[] inherently be of area greater than the cutout portion.” Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 5 Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. ¶ 42). Appellant also argues that “‘the area of the cutout portion is less than the area of its associated flap,’” as claimed, “if [the associated flap] is to cover and block the air flow through the shroud panel.” Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3-4. Appellant submits that this claimed relationship is depicted in Figures 3A and 3B, wherein [w]hen the flaps are open (i.e., when the fan is operating) as shown in FIG. 3A, the cutout portions 310 therein are clearly visible behind the opened flaps 316. Further, when the flaps are closed, as in FIG. 3B, the flaps 316 are illustrated as “configured to cover the cutout portions 310 . . . .’” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant concludes that blocking of airflow is achieved by a flap of larger area covering a cutout portion in the shroud, the cutout portion leaving edges in the shroud, the edges defining an area of an opening in the shroud and thus, the claim does not include an embodiment where the flap is configured to be of smaller area than the cutout. Id. at 4. We begin by construing the meaning of the claim term “cutout.” During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 6 The Specification does not provide a special definition of the claim term “cutout” and discloses consistently that “[t]he shroud panel comprises a plurality of cutout portions” (Spec. ¶ 7) and that, when the flaps are in the open position, airflow passes “directly through the cutout portions 310” (id. ¶ 43). See also id. ¶ 10 (“the plurality of cutout portions extends along the shroud panel in an annular path”); ¶ 11 (“one of the plurality [of] cutout portions includes one or more sealing elements”); see also ¶ 35; ¶ 28 (“shroud panel 104 is comprised of static blades 112 and cutout portions 110”); ¶ 31 (“shroud panel 204 contains a structures including cutout portions 210, fixed members 214, and flap members 216”); ¶ 32 (“shroud panel 204 of FIGS. 2A and 2B includes fixed members 214 that are stationary and separated by a series of cutout portions 210”; “[i]n the configuration of FIGS. 2A and 2B, each of the flap members 216 is associated with at least one of the cutout portions 210,” wherein “each of the flap members 216 can be configured to block one of the cutout portions 210”); ¶ 33 (“flap members 216 [may be biased towards] their respective cutout portions”); ¶ 36 (“multiple flap members 216 can be associated with the same cutout portions 210” and “blocking of airflow through the one cutout portion 210 is provided when the associated flap members 216 are all in the closed position”); ¶ 37 (disclosing that “flap members 216 and their corresponding fixed members 214” may be separated at regular or irregular intervals “by cutout portions 210”). Thus, because the claimed “cutout portions” are described in the Specification relative to the shroud, and also because the Specification discloses that airflow passes through the cutout portions, we construe the claim term “cutout” to mean “the space or hole left after cutting.” See Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 7 Appendix A (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cutout (last visited February 22, 2022); cf. id. (also defining the claim term “cutout” as “something cut out or off from something else”). Further, in the context of claim 1, we construe the claimed “cutout portions” to structurally be a hole left after cutting a portion out of shroud panel. Claims 1 and 8 require that “each of the cutout portions which form the openings in the shroud panel [are] of area smaller than its associated flap.” Appeal Br. 16-17, 19-20 (Claims App.). This claim limitation was added by amendment,5 as the originally filed claims recited, “wherein each of the plurality of flap members is configured to alternate between at least a first position . . . and a second position within one of the plurality of cutout portions.” Emphasis added. Notably, the Specification discloses, with reference to a first embodiment, that “[i]n the second position, a flap member lies within one of the plurality of cutout portions,” such that “the flap members are configured to extend substantially across an associated cutout portions.” Spec. ¶ 7. However, Appellant argues supra that this embodiment, wherein the flap has a smaller surface area than the area of the cutout portion and lies within it, is not the embodiment covered by claim 1. We also do not agree with Appellant that Figure 3B depicts the claimed relative areas; rather, Figure 3B appears to depict flaps 316 lying within, and substantially across an annular cutout, which the Specification describes as “cutout portions 310 on the shroud panel 304.” Spec. ¶ 42. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that because the Specification discloses that flap members “block” or “cover” the cutout 5 See Amendment filed Sept. 15, 2020. Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 8 portions, the cutout portions must inherently have a smaller area that an associated flap. First, Appellant does not rely on an express written description from the Specification for this configuration. Second, we agree with the Examiner that the flaps may cover or block the cutout portions by having a surface area that circumscribes the border of the cutout portion (i.e., substantially extending across the cutout portion), without extending beyond the cutout portion and overlying the edges of the shroud panel, which are separately recited in claim 1. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 42 (disclosing, with reference to Figure 3A-3D, that “flap members 316 can be configured to cover cutout portions 310 on the shroud panel 304,” which “blocks air from passing through the fan assembly 300”). We are also not persuaded that the disclosure in the Specification that “flap members 316 lie flush with the fan housing 302 to block cutout portions 310” (Spec. ¶ 44) requires the cutout portion to have an area smaller than the surface area of an associated flap, because the Specification discloses that “[t]he housing is comprised of a shroud panel” (Spec. ¶ 7), which implies that the flap is flush with the shroud panel, or in other words, that the flap lies within the cutout portion and does not overlie the edges of the shroud panel. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, and claims 2-7 and 9-15 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Rejection II Independent claims 1 and 8 recite, “wherein the shroud panel comprises a plurality of opening . . . each . . . defined by an area bounded by Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 9 edges of the shroud panel surrounding a cutout portion in the shroud panel.” see Appeal Br. 16-17, 18-19 (Claims App.). Regarding claims 1 and 8, the Examiner finds that “the scope covered by the ‘area’ is unclear,” relative to this claim limitation, because it is unclear where “the ‘area’ end[s] and the ‘cutout portion’ begin[s].” Final Act. 9. In other words, the Examiner finds that the claimed “openings” and “cutout portions” are the same structural element. Ans. 6. The PTO can properly reject a claim as indefinite if the claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, however, we find that claims 1 and 8 recite an express definition of the claim term “openings” using the elements of the shroud panel and cutout portions to define “area[s]” that correspond to the openings. In other words, claims 1 and 8 clearly set forth that an area (or space) occupied by an opening in the shroud panel is the area bounded by the edges of the shroud panel when material is cut from the shroud panel to form a cutout. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 8, and claims 2-7 and 9-15 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Rejection III Regarding independent claim 1 and 8, the Examiner relies Maeda for disclosing a shroud panel, as claimed, and as indicated on the Examiner’s annotated version of Maeda’s Figure 11, reproduced below. Final Act. 10-11. Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 10 The Examiner’s annotated version of Maeda’s Figure 11 depicts “a reverse flow preventing device” (Maeda 3:38-40), wherein the Examiner has indicated cutout portions corresponding to openings defined by Maeda’s “frame 28,” which has “a central portion 28A, a peripheral portion 28B arranged about the central portion 28A . . ., and connecting portions 28C arranged between the central portion 28A and the peripheral portion 28B” (id. at 7:4-8). The Examiner explains that Maeda discloses a shroud panel as “the wall surrounding the fan near the outlet of the housing.” Ans. 12. The Examiner further explains that Maeda identifies the entire housing as “casing 12” . . . , but does not subdivide the casing into smaller sections in the same manner that the Appellant divides the “fan housing 202” with the “shroud panel 204” . . . . However, Maeda failing to use the same terminology or describe the invention with the same level Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 11 of detail does not mean the prior art fails to teach a similar structure. The [E]xaminer maintains that the drawings can be relied upon for what they reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 14. Appellant argues, inter alia, that “[t]here is no shroud panel described with regard to [Figure] 11 of Maeda.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 5 (arguing that Maeda fails to disclose “‘cutout portions of the shroud, nor of the ‘edges’ of the shroud remaining after the cutout portion is removed”). We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Independent claims 1 and 8 require a shroud panel comprising openings defined by an area bounded by edges of the shroud panel surrounding a cutout portion in the shroud panel, or in other words, a shroud panel with holes left after cutting material from the shroud panel. We agree with Appellant that Maeda’s frame is not a shroud panel (i.e., flat board), nor do the openings between the struts or portions of Maeda’s frame disclose openings as defined in the claims, namely, areas bounded by edges of the shroud panel surrounding cutout portions (i.e., holes left after cutting and removing material from the shroud panel). The Examiner’s further reliance on Palau for disclosing flaps pivotably attached to vanes, and also on Shih for disclosing flaps extending beyond the borders of cutout portions in a shroud panel does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s reliance on Maeda, as set forth supra, because the Examiner does not rely on Palau for disclosing a shroud panel, and the Examiner does not propose modifying Maeda to incorporate a shroud panel, as taught in Shih. Final Act. 12-16 Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 12 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, and claims 3-5, 7, 9, 11-13, and 15 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over Maeda, Palau, and Shih. Rejections IV and V The Examiner’s reliance on Kobayashi for teaching a pivot comprising a certain biasing element and on Davis for teaching seals does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s finding relative to Maeda in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, as set forth supra, from which claims 2, 6, 10, and 14 depend. Final Act. 19-21. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as unpatentable over Maeda, Palau, Shih, and Kobayashi or Davis. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is affirmed, and the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and 103 are reversed. Appeal 2021-004751 Application 15/944,165 13 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-15 112(a) Written description 1-15 1-15 112(b) Indefiniteness 1-15 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15 103 Maeda, Palau, Shih 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15 2, 10 103 Maeda, Palau, Shih, Kobayashi 2, 10 6, 14 103 Maeda, Palau, Shih, Davis 6, 14 Overall Outcome 1-15 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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