Asetek Danmark A/S

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2021

IPR2020-00523 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 36
571-272-7822 Entered: August 19, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
Patent Owner.

IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
KEVIN W. CHERRY, and JASON W. MELVIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
CoolIT Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 15, and 19
of U.S. Patent No. 10,078,354 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’354 patent”). Asetek
Danemark A/S (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6. We
authorized Petitioner to file a Preliminary Reply (Paper 8). Paper 7. We
instituted review. Paper 9 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst.”).
Patent Owner filed a Response. Paper 21. Petitioner filed a Reply.
Paper 27 (“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 30
(“PO Sur-Reply”). We held a hearing on May 24, 2021, and a transcript
appears in the record. Paper 35 (“Tr.”).
This is a final written decision as to the patentability of the challenged
claims. For the reasons discussed below, we determine Petitioner has shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the challenged claims is
unpatentable.
A. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
The Petition identifies CoolIT Systems, Inc., as the real party in
interest for Petitioner. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies Asetek Danmark A/S,
Asetek USA, Inc., Asetek A/S, and Asetek Holdings, Inc., as the real parties
in interest for Patent Owner. Paper 4, 1 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
Notices).
B. RELATED MATTERS
The parties identify Asetek Danmark A/S v. CoolIT Systems, Inc., Case
No. 3:19-cv-00410-EMC (N.D. Cal.) (complaint served on February 7,
2019, currently pending) as a related co-pending district court litigation. Pet.
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

3

1; Paper 4, 1. The parties also identify the following inter partes reviews
involving patents that are related to the ’354 patent: IPR2020-00522, Inter
Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355 B2, filed on February 7, 2020;
and IPR2020-00524, Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,733,681 B2,
filed on February 7, 2020. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1.
C. THE ’354 PATENT
The ’354 patent is titled “Cooling System for a Computer System.”
Ex. 1001, Code (54). It issued from an application filed June 19, 2017, as a
continuation of application No. 15/347,938, which issued as Patent
No. 9,715,260 and claims priority to a PCT application filed November 8,
2004, which issued as Patent No. 7,971,632. Id. at Code (60).
The ’354 patent relates to a liquid-cooling system for a computer
system. Id. at Code (57). The specification contends that liquid cooling is
generally more efficient and quieter than air cooling, but that a liquid-
cooling design consists of “many components,” which increases the total
installation time and risk of leakage of the cooling liquid from the system.
Id. at 1:46–56. Thus, one object of the invention is to provide a small and
compact liquid-cooling solution that is more efficient than existing air-
cooling arrangements, can be produced at low cost enabling high production
volumes, is easy to use and implement, can be used with existing CPU types
and computer systems, and requires a low level of maintenance or no
maintenance at all. Id. at 1:60–2:3.
An illustrative embodiment of such a system is depicted in Figures 7
and 8, reproduced below.
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

4

Figure 8 is a perspective view of the cooling system showing reservoir
housing 14 with heat exchanging surface 5 (shown in Figure 7) and pump 21
(shown in Figure 8) inside the reservoir. Id. at 13:29–31. Figure 7 is a cut-
out view into reservoir housing 14, when the reservoir, pump 21, and heat
exchanging surface 4 are situated inside the reservoir. Id. at 12:62–64. The
reservoir has tube inlet connection 15 (not shown in Figure 7) through which
the cooling liquid enters the reservoir. Id. at 12:64–66. From the tube inlet
connection, the cooling liquid flows through the reservoir passing heat
exchanging surface 4 and enters the inlet of the pump. Id. at 12:67–13:2.
After the cooling liquid flows through the pump, the cooling liquid passes
out of the outlet of the pump and further out through tube outlet
connection 16. Id. at 13:2–4. As shown in Figure 8, tube inlet connection 15
and tube outlet connection 16 are connected to heat radiator 11 by means of
connecting tubes 24 and 25. Id. at 13:32–35. Cooling liquid flows into and
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

5

out of the reservoir and the heat radiator through connecting tubes 24 and
25, respectively. Id. Heat radiator 11 (shown in Figure 8) cools the cooling
liquid before it passes back into the reservoir. Id. at 13:35–43.
The reservoir may be provided with channels or segments for
establishing a certain flow-path for the cooling liquid through the reservoir
to prevent the cooling liquid from passing the reservoir too quickly to take
up a sufficient amount of heat from the heat exchanging surface. Id. at
13:63–14:12. Figure 9 is reproduced below:

Figure 9 depicts an embodiment of reservoir housing 14 in which
channels 261 are provided to direct the flow of cooling liquid from inlet 15
to outlet 16. Id. at 15:25–34.

1 Although the text refers to “channels 25,” that designation appears to be in
error and we understand the structure labeled “26” in Figure 9 to depict the
described channels. See Ex. 1001, 15:25–34.
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

6

D. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
Challenged claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent, and claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A cooling system for a computer system processing unit,
comprising:
a reservoir configured to circulate a cooling liquid
therethrough, the reservoir including:
an upper chamber and a lower chamber, wherein the
upper chamber and the lower chamber are vertically
displaced fluid-containing chambers that are each
surrounded by boundary walls;
a first passage that fluidly couples the lower chamber to
the upper chamber, where the first passage is
substantially central to the lower chamber;
a second passage positioned at a perimeter of the lower
chamber;
wherein the lower chamber includes a plurality of
channels configured to split the flow of cooling
liquid and direct the cooling liquid from the central
region toward the perimeter of the lower chamber;
a heat exchanging interface attached to the reservoir to form
a boundary wall of the lower chamber, the heat
exchanging interface provides thermal contact between
the processing unit and the cooling liquid;
a pump having a motor and an impeller, the impeller being
positioned within the upper chamber of the reservoir;
and a radiator spaced apart from and fluidly coupled to the
reservoir.
Id. at 18:62–19:20. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations.
Id. at 19:41–20:2, 20:23–49. Claims 4, 14, and 19 indirectly depend from
claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

7

E. PRIOR ART AND ASSERTED GROUNDS
Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability:
Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1, 8, 15 103 Batchelder2, Shin3
4, 14, 19 103 Batchelder, Shin, Cheon4
Pet. 3. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
(Ex. 1003). See generally Pet. 3.
II. ANALYSIS
A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling
systems for computer systems, would have earned at least a
bachelor’s degree, such as an B.S. (bachelor of science), or
equivalent thereof, in electrical or mechanical engineering or a
closely-related field, and would have possessed at least two or
three years of experience in liquid cooling systems for
computer systems or in similar systems.
Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–19). Patent Owner does not dispute this
definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. We adopt
Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent
with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior
art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355

2 US 6,019,165, issued Feb. 1, 2000 (Ex. 1006).
3 Translation of Japanese Application Pub. 2002-151638, published May 24,
2002 (Ex. 1007).
4 US 5,731,954, issued Mar. 24, 1998 (Ex. 1008).
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

8

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate
level of ordinary skill in the art).
B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
For an inter partes review petition filed after November 13, 2018, we
construe claim terms “using the same claim construction standard that would
be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).”
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Petitioner proposes constructions for
“reservoir,” “chamber,” “impeller,” and “radiator.” Pet. 7–9. We determined
in the Institution Decision that no term required an express construction.
Inst. 10–11. Patent Owner agrees that no issue before us requires express
construction. PO Resp. 6–7. We maintain our view that no claim term
requires express construction in this Final Written Decision.
C. OBVIOUSNESS OVER BATCHELDER AND SHIN
Petitioner asserts that Batchelder teaches most limitations of claim 1
with an embodiment depicted in Batchelder’s Figure 2, reproduced below:
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

9

Ex. 1006, Fig. 2. Figure 2 depicts a heat-transfer device where heat from
metal cover 8 of semiconductor chip 4 moves into lower surface 24 of active
spreader plate 20, into metallic fin array 52, then into heat-transfer fluid
sealed in flow channels 50 inside active spreader plate 20. Figure 2 also
depicts a centripetal or centrifugal pump with impeller 54, immersed in heat-
transfer fluid and driven through magnetic coupling to rotor 32, which is
outside active spreader plate 20. Id. at 4:63–26. As indicated by arrows in
Figure 2, the heat-transfer fluid flows outward from impeller 54 to the
perimeter of active spreader plate 20, down to the bottom surface, inward to
the center where metallic fin array 52 is located, and then up a passage back
to impeller 54. Id. at 5:21–32, Fig. 2.
Petitioner relies on Shin for certain aspects of the claims. Shin
discloses a cooling system for computer components, in which a pump is
affixed to a liquid-cooled heat sink and circulates coolant through the heat
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

10

sink and then through a “heat exchanger” to release heat to the environment.
Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–25, Fig. 3. Shin’s Figure 3 is reproduced below:

Id. at Fig. 3. Figure 3 depicts an embodiment of Shin’s liquid-cooled heat
sink 4, placed on heat-generating element 1 on wiring board 2, which is
housed inside case 24; fan 34 provides air cooling for multiple air-cooled
components 22a, 22b, 22c; liquid coolant circulates through hose 16 to heat
exchanger 27 in thermal contact with the side of panel 32 so that heat from
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

11

the liquid coolant spreads through conduction to side panel 32 and is
released by both natural convection and cooling air 25 provided by fan 34.
Id. ¶ 25.
1. Claim 1
Claim 1 requires both an “upper chamber” and a “lower chamber,”
which Petitioner maps to the flow channels on the top and bottom of
Batchelder’s active spreader plate, respectively. Pet. 16–18 (showing
annotated versions of Batchelder’s Figures 2, 7, and 8). Claim 1 further
requires that “the lower chamber includes a plurality of channels configured
to split the flow of cooling liquid and direct the cooling liquid from the
central region toward the perimeter of the lower chamber.”
Petitioner asserts first that Batchelder’s flow pattern satisfies this
requirement because it flows upward from the central region and through the
upper flow passages before reentering the lower flow passages at the
perimeter of the active spreader plate. Id. at 30 (showing an annotated
version of Batchelder’s Figure 2). We do not find that assertion persuasive
because the claim requires that the “lower chamber” includes channels that
split the flow and direct it “from the central region toward the perimeter of
the lower chamber.” That plain language requires the flow enter the lower
chamber in the central region and proceed to the perimeter of the lower
chamber. Such an understanding is consistent with the embodiment shown in
Figure 9 of the ’354 patent. Ex. 1001, 15:25–34, Figs. 9, 10. Accordingly,
claim 1 does not read on Batchelder’s disclosed flow pattern. See
PO Resp. 18–25.
Petitioner asserts further that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan “to reverse the flow direction such that the cooling liquid is directed
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

12

from the central region toward the perimeter of the lower chamber entirely
within the lower chamber.” Id. at 30. According to Petitioner, doing so
“could be facilitated by using the pump (e.g., displacement pump 280)
disclosed in FIG. 9 (upper-right) of Batchelder.” Id. at 30–31 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Ex. 1006, 8:14–36). Petitioner asserts that it would have been
obvious to try the claimed flow pattern because the flow could only move in
two directions (center-to-periphery or periphery-to-center). Id. at 33. Finally,
Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans had reason to change the flow pattern
because they would have known “that heat can negatively impact the life of
a pump” and the modification would “allow warm fluid to flow away from
the pump rather than toward the pump.” Id. at 34.
As to the difficulty of modifying Batchelder, Petitioner asserts that
skilled artisans would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 33
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80). In particular, Petitioner asserts that “cooling a heat
generating component using liquid to absorb the heat is a well-documented
technique,” such that skilled artisans would have configured the flow “to
maximize heat absorption” and “control the way liquid absorbs heat as it
moves across a surface.” Id.
Patent Owner disputes both whether skilled artisans would have had
reason to make the asserted combination and also whether they would have
had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. PO Resp. 26–29.
According to Patent Owner, the claimed flow direction is “critical for
optimal heat removal” rather than being a simple matter of choice. Id. at 26–
27. For support, however, Patent Owner relies on its declarant’s statements.
Id. (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 52). The specification does not disclose a particular
benefit to the claimed flow direction. See Tr. 23:5–11, 25:5–7, 27:3–11. But
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

13

the specification discloses other approaches, such as the side-to-side flow
depicted in Figure 15. Tr. 27:3–7. Indeed, rather than identifying center-to-
periphery flow as beneficial, the specification gives flexible guidance for
arranging flow channels. Ex. 1001, 15:63–67 (“The configuration of the
channels may be designed and selected according to any one or more
provisions, i.e. high heat dissipation, certain flow characteristics, ease of
manufacturing etc.”).
Moreover, the record reflects that skilled artisans would have had
reason to configure the flow as claimed, without the claim language for
guidance. According to each party’s declarant, configuring the flow to move
from center to periphery provided certain benefits. Ex. 1003 ¶ 81 (reasoning
that pumping hot liquid away from the pump would increase pump service
life); Ex. 2018 ¶ 52 (reasoning that providing cooler liquid to the hottest
central region first would improve heat-removal efficiency). In particular,
we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant that reversing Batchelder’s
flow to pump heated liquid away from the pump would have benefited pump
life by reducing its temperature. Ex. 1003 ¶ 81.
Patent Owner argues that because the pump disclosed in Batchelder’s
Figure 2 moves fluid radially outwards from the impeller, Petitioner’s
proposed modification would change “the entire pumping configuration”
because it would require liquid to flow towards the center of the impeller.
PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:26–32; Ex. 2018 ¶ 54). Patent Owner does
not adequately address that Batchelder also discloses “several examples of
fluid impellers that can effectively be used in an active spreader plate,” an
element described in connection with the Figure 2 embodiment. Ex. 1006,
4:63–67, 8:14–67. The Petition specifically identified “displacement pump
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

14

280” as the proposed mechanism for reversing flow. Pet. 30–31 (citing
Ex. 1006, 8:14–36).
Indeed, Batchelder’s displacement pump 280 exposes the problem
with Patent Owner’s argument. Although Patent Owner argues that pumping
fluid from the periphery to the center of a pump is inefficient and
undesirable, Batchelder’s displacement pump 280 does not use that flow
path. An excerpt of Batchelder’s Figure 9 is reproduced below:

Ex. 1006, Fig. 9. The excerpt depicts displacement pump 280, in which heat
transfer fluid feeds the pump through channel 282 leading to circular cavity
286, in which eccentric disc-shaped rotor 288 rotates due to external
magnetic fields, and movable plunger 294 presses against the rotor such that
the rotor moves fluid out channel 282. Id. at 8:27–36.
As shown, the fluid in Batchelder’s displacement pump does not have
a net change in radial position from the pump’s entrance to its exit. Id. at
Fig. 9. Thus, Patent Owner’s reliance on Batchelder’s disclosure of pumping
liquid “radially outward” from impeller 54 (PO Resp. 28; PO Sur-Reply 16–
17; Ex. 2018 ¶ 54) does not adequately consider the alternative flow path of
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

15

Batchelder’s displacement pump 280. While Patent Owner argues that the
proposed change would affect Batchelder’s “entire pumping configuration,”
we find the exercise would not have dissuaded skilled artisans from the
change. Batchelder specifically instructs that the exemplary pumps shown in
Figure 9 “can effectively be used in an active spreader plate” and that each is
“motivated by moving external magnetic fields,” as in the primary
embodiment. Ex. 1006, 8:14–16. Changes to the overall configuration would
of course have been required to accommodate the fluid entrance and exit
locations on displacement pump 280, but nothing about those changes
appears to stretch the abilities of skilled artisans at the time. See Ex. 1012
¶ 11–14
To be clear, we agree with Petitioner that skilled artisans would have
had reason to modify Batchelder’s primary embodiment to reverse its flow
for a potential benefit to pump life, and that Batchelder’s disclosure of
displacement pump 280 taught a method of facilitating such a reverse flow
with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the Sur-Reply, Patent Owner raises additional arguments against
the asserted modification. In particular, Patent Owner argues that any
improvement to pump life is speculative, as shown by its own declarant’s
statements. PO Sur-Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1011, 72:15–73:25, 76:21–78:12).
Similarly, Patent Owner argues that any benefit to the impeller’s magnetic
coupling by operating at a lower temperature would not overcome
disadvantages to modifying Batchelder. Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1011,
90:24–94:6). While the Response challenged the modification by arguing
that Petitioner provided inadequate reason to modify Batchelder’s flow
direction (PO Resp. 26–29), it did not raise these additional arguments that
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

16

challenged Petitioner’s reasoning. Patent Owner’s assertion that it
“specifically disputed Petitioner’s motivation to reverse the flow direction in
Batchelder” (PO Sur-Reply 11 n.1) does not persuade us otherwise because
the Response arguments were limited to the points discussed above.5 Patent
Owner was fully aware of Petitioner’s pump-life justification for the asserted
modification but did not address it in the Response. Accordingly, we
determine that Patent Owner has waived the arguments. See Paper 10, 8
(“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response
may be deemed waived.”); In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1380–81
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the patent owner waived an issue presented
in its preliminary response that it failed to renew in its response during trial);
Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 52 (Nov. 2019) (“Once a trial is instituted,
the Board may decline to consider arguments set forth in a preliminary
response unless they are raised in the patent owner response.”). Similarly,
the Petition did not rely on Batchelder’s alternative pumps beyond
displacement pump 280. See Pet. 30–31. Therefore, we give no weight to
Petitioner’s assertions in the Reply regarding Batchelder’s viscosity
pump 260. Pet. Reply 11–15.
For the claimed “radiator spaced apart from and fluidly coupled to the
reservoir,” Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious for a skilled

5 Patent Owner argues that by asserting the flow direction was a “design
choice,” Petitioner relies on a legal theory inapplicable where the selected
design has a functional benefit. Sur-Reply 8–9. Because we do not
understand Petitioner to rely on “design choice” as that phrase is used in
the case law (where a change is made without a functional impact), Patent
Owner’s argument is inapposite. As noted in our discussion, Petitioner
provides evidence that skilled artisans would have understood a
performance benefit to modifying Batchelder’s flow direction.
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

17

artisan to modify Batchelder’s system to include Shin’s heat exchanger 27,
28, and 29. Pet. 40–46 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 25, Fig. 3). Petitioner submits that
modifying Batchelder’s device to include Shin’s radiator would have been
obvious because “[a] radiator is [a] well known component used to transfer
thermal energy (e.g., heat) from one medium to another medium.” Pet. 43
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). According to Petitioner, a skilled artisan had reason
to make the change to Batchelder “to further increase heat management
efficiency by using an outside or external radiator.” Id. at 44.
Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s reasoning and argues that
Petitioner fails to support why a skilled artisan would have modified
Batchelder to use Shin’s external radiator. PO Resp. 37–41. Patent Owner
notes that Batchelder already includes a “heat absorbing device 28” to
dissipate heat to the environment and criticizes Petitioner for proposing to
add an external radiator without support in Batchelder that doing so would
“increase heat management efficiency.” Id. at 37–38 (quoting Ex. 1003
¶ 99). Patent Owner contends that adding an external radiator “would be a
superfluous addition to Batchelder because heat from the cooling liquid is
already sufficiently removed by heat absorbing device 28.” Id. at 39.
Petitioner points out that, although Batchelder includes one
mechanism for transferring heat to the environment, it also recognizes that
industry trends showed an ongoing need to improve heat dissipation. Pet.
Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:34–38). Thus, reasons Petitioner, enhancing
Batchelder’s capacity with Shin’s external radiator would have offered a
benefit. Id. We agree with Petitioner that Batchelder’s recognition of ever-
increasing thermal demands supports that adding a remote radiator would
have provided a potential benefit to Batchelder’s design because it “would
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

18

allow heat to escape the system.” Pet. 44. In that regard, Shin’s radiator was
a known element for releasing heat from a fluid system. Id. at 40–43. Thus,
we conclude that Petitioner’s “proposed modification amounts to nothing
more than reorganizing familiar elements according to known methods to
yield predictable results.” Grit Energy Sol’ns, LLC v. Oren Techs., 957 F.3d
1309, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 416 (2007)).
Relatedly, Patent Owner argues that Batchelder teaches away from
using an external radiator, because doing so would require a second motor
for the radiator’s fan. PO Resp. 40–41. Batchelder recognizes the “cost
disadvantage of requiring separate motors to impel the heat transfer fluid and
to impel the atmosphere.” Ex. 1006 1:67–2:1. Similarly, it recognizes
“reliability exposure associated with hoses and fittings.” Id. at 2:4–5.
Notably, however, Batchelder does not indicate that using a separate radiator
(and associated fan motor) would not function to meet cooling needs. We
find that Batchelder expresses a preference for the simpler design without a
radiator but does not teach away from using one. Additionally, Petitioner
point out that skilled artisans would have understood that an external
radiator could often use an existing computer-case fan, therefore not
requiring an additional fan motor. Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 26). Indeed,
Shin’s radiator (heat exchanger 27) is installed on a side panel of the
computer case that contains fan 34 and the radiator does not use a separate
fan. Ex. 1007 ¶ 25, Fig. 3.
Patent Owner argues that adding a remote radiator to Batchelder
would contradict its objective of an integrated system without hoses or fluid
couplings and would therefore “render Batchelder inoperable for its intended
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

19

purpose of providing an integrated, low-cost, and reliable heat exchange
system.” PO Resp. 40. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s
characterization of Batchelder’s intended purpose. Batchelder expresses a
number of objectives, including some that would not be impacted by adding
an external radiator—a design compatible with passive spreader heat sinks
and a design without moving or rotary mechanical seals. See Ex. 1006, 2:40–
57.
We find that skilled artisans would have understood that modifying
Batchelder’s design to use an external radiator would have introduced
certain deficiencies (assembly cost and reliability exposure (Ex. 1006 2:4–
5)) but would also have brought the benefit of additional cooling capacity
(Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). That tradeoff does not exclude Shin’s radiator from use
with Batchelder’s design. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d
1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes
at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a
basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.
Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one
another.”). When we weigh the competing factors, as expressed in the
record, we conclude that skilled artisans would have had adequate reason to
modify Batchelder as Petitioner asserts.
Other than as discussed, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s
assertions against claim 1. Thus, any such challenge is waived. See Paper 10,
8 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response
may be deemed waived.”); In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1380–81
(Fed. Cir. 2016); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 52 (Nov. 2019). We
have reviewed the record, including both parties’ contentions and evidence,
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

20

and conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that the combination of Batchelder and Shin discloses the limitations of
claim 1, and that skilled artisans would have had reason to make the
combination as asserted, with a reasonable expectation of success.
2. Claim 8
For independent claim 8, which recites limitations similar to claim 1,
Petitioner relies on the same assertions as for claim 1. Pet. 47–49. Petitioner
asserts that claim 8 is broader than claim 1 in one regard—claim 8 does not
include claim 1’s “plurality of channels configured to split the flow of
cooling liquid and direct the cooling liquid from the central region toward
the perimeter of the lower chamber.” Id. at 48; compare Ex. 1001, 18:62–
19:20, with id. at 19:41–20:2. Like claim 1, claim 8 recites that the passage
coupling the upper chamber to the lower chamber “is substantially central to
the lower chamber” and that the lower chamber includes “a plurality of
channels configured to direct the flow of cooling liquid across the lower
chamber.” Ex. 1001, 19:49–51, 19:54–56. Thus, claim 8 does not require the
same flow direction as claim 1.
In light of not restricting flow direction, claim 8’s language reads on
Batchelder’s disclosures even without modifying Batchelder to reverse its
flow. Ex. 1006, Figs. 2, 6, 7, 8, 4:63–5:6, 7:4–22, 7:30–36; see Pet. 48.
Patent Owner does not contest that point. See PO Resp. 16–37 (challenging
disclosure or obviousness of the claimed flow direction for only claims 1
and 15). In other regards, the parties treat claim 8 the same as claim 1, and
we reach the same conclusions for the reasons discussed above.
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

21

3. Claim 15
Independent claim 15 recites limitations similar to those of claim 1.
Petitioner asserts obviousness based on the same disclosures of Batchelder
and Shin. Pet. 49–54. Patent Owner argues that, as with claim 1, Batchelder
does not disclose the claimed flow orientation, from the center to the
periphery of the lower chamber. PO Resp. 29–31. For the reasons discussed
above for the flow required by claim 1, we agree. See supra at 11.
Patent Owner raises the same arguments against reversing
Batchelder’s flow direction as discussed above for claim 1. Compare
PO Resp. 26–29, with id. at 33–35. Those arguments are not persuasive for
the reasons discussed above. See supra at 12–15. We conclude that
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that skilled artisans
would have had reason to reverse Batchelder’s flow to arrive at the claimed
configuration.
Patent Owner argues further that the combination of Batchelder and
Shin does not disclose claim 15’s “second passage positioned at a perimeter
of the lower chamber” that directs cooling liquid from the “lower chamber.”
PO Resp. 35–37. That argument, however, ignores that Petitioner asserts a
combination in which Batchelder’s flow direction is reversed. Pet. 28–34,
50–53. In that combination, with reversed flow, the cooling liquid would
enter Batchelder’s lower chamber at the center and exit at the periphery, as
claimed.
In other regards, the parties treat claim 15 the same as claim 1, and we
reach the same conclusions for the reasons discussed above.
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

22

4. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness
Patent Owner argues that the record supports objective indicia that
militate toward a conclusion of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 46–71. Patent
Owner submits that its commercial embodiments—“Asetek’s Generation 5,
6, and 7 products”—establish a presumption of nexus between the objective
indicia and the patented invention because the products “embody and are
coextensive with the independent claims of the ’354 patent.” PO Resp. 48–
49. Patent Owner provides a chart showing how each limitation of claims 1,
8, and 15 reads on an exemplary product, the Corsair H80i v2. Id. at 49–61.
Patent Owner’s contentions, however, suffer from a critical deficiency
in identifying a first passage substantially central to the lower chamber. The
deficiency is apparent when comparing Patent Owner’s contentions for the
first passage with those for the second passage, which must be positioned at
a perimeter of the lower chamber. Patent Owner’s contention for the first
passage is reproduced below:

IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

23

PO Resp. 51. The image shows the device’s lower chamber with an arrow
pointing to a passage, but that passage is not central to the lower chamber.
Patent Owner’s contention for the second passage is reproduced below:

Id. The image shows the device’s lower chamber with arrows pointing to
two passages that are near the perimeter of the chamber.
The problem with Patent Owner’s contention regarding the first
passage is that it is only marginally farther from the chamber’s perimeter
than the second passages. See id. Based on the evidence, we find that the
first passage in Petitioner’s device is not substantially central to the lower
chamber, as required by claims 1 and 8. Claim 15 does not recite that the
passage be “substantially central to the lower chamber” but does require the
flow through the first passage “is directed along a plurality of channels from
a central region of the lower chamber outward.” See id. at 59. The
noncentral passage identified by Patent Owner does not satisfy that claim
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

24

language because flow that does not enter the lower chamber in the central
region cannot be directed from the central region outward.
Patent Owner does not address the mismatch between the claim
language and its contentions. Rather, it simply asserts that the pictured
product satisfies the claims, without elaboration. See id. at 51, 54–55, 58–
59.6 Although Patent Owner offers support from its declarant, that support
contains no analysis that might further explain how the claim language maps
onto the commercial products. Ex. 2018 ¶ 75. The declaration includes a
number of charts, but each suffers from the same deficiency discussed
above, in that the purported passage neither is central to the lower chamber
nor creates flow from a central region of the lower chamber outward. See
Ex. 2018 (Ex. B, 4, 9, 13–15; Ex. C, 3, 8, 12–13; Ex. D, 3, 8, 12–13). As
with Patent Owner’s Response, its declarant’s charts merely annotate
photographs of the commercial embodiments and assert that they contain the
claim limitations—the assertions repeat the claim language without any
useful analysis. Id. Patent Owner’s assertions fail to persuade us that its
commercial embodiments embody the claimed features. Thus, Patent Owner
is not correct that “nexus is satisfied (by a presumption of nexus).” See PO
Sur-Reply 23; FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) (explaining that a presumption of nexus requires the Patent

6 At the hearing, Patent Owner asserted that its identification of a central
passage is consistent with “the interpretations that the parties have taken in
the litigation.” Tr. 32:22–23; see id. at 29:21–33:16 (discussing Patent
Owner’s identification of a first passage). That argument is not persuasive
at least because it seeks a finding based on information not of record.
Petitioner has not taken a position in this proceeding that would support
Patent Owner’s assertion that the lower chamber of its commercial
embodiments contains a central passage or one that directs flow outward.
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

25

Owner show a specific product embodies the claimed features and is
coextensive with them).
Without a presumption of nexus, Patent Owner’s contentions
regarding objective indicia do not persuade against a conclusion of
obviousness. The evidence of those indicia does not appear to relate to an
aspect of Patent Owner’s commercial product beyond what existed in the
prior art. See Pet. Reply 24–30. Indeed, Patent Owner does not contend
otherwise, as it relies on the presumption to establish a nexus, rather than
evidence of direct nexus. See PO Sur-Reply 21–22. We conclude that, by
failing to establish that it is entitled to a presumption of nexus, Patent Owner
does not provide persuasive evidence of nonobviousness.
5. Summary
Patent Owner does not offer any further arguments against
obviousness over Batchelder and Shin. We have considered all of the
parties’ contentions and evidence regarding obviousness over Batchelder
and Shin, and conclude that Petitioner has proven obviousness of claims 1,
8, and 15 over Batchelder and Shin.
D. OBVIOUSNESS OVER BATCHELDER, SHIN, AND CHEON
For claims 4, 14, and 19, which indirectly depend from claims 1, 8,
and 15, respectively, Petitioner asserts that Shin and Cheon disclose the
additional limitations of those claims. Pet. 54–63.
Petitioner first addresses the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16, from
which claims 4, 14, and 19 depend, respectively. Pet. 54–55. Each of claims
2, 9, and 16 recites “a control system . . . configured to adjust a speed of the
pump.” Ex. 1001, 19:21–23, 20:3–5, 20:50–52. Petitioner relies on Shin’s
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

26

disclosure that its system “allows control of cooling power by changing the
rotational speed of the pump.” Pet. 54–55 (quoting Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 35, 19).
Petitioner reasons that modifying Batchelder to use Shin’s control would
have been an obvious way to use a “known technique to provide liquid
cooling functionality while being mindful of power consumption.” Id. at 55.
Petitioner further asserts that the combination would conserve power when a
system has low heat production. Id.
1. Claims 4 and 19
Claim 4 further requires the control system be “configured to measure
one of an operating load or an operating temperature of the processing unit
and adjust the pump based on the measured value.” Ex. 1001, 19:26–29.
Claim 19 similarly requires the control system be “configured to determine a
required cooling capacity of the cooling system and adjust a rotational speed
of the pump based on the required cooling capacity.” Id. at 20:59–62. For
both claims, Petitioner relies on Cheon as disclosing a control system
configured to measure operating temperature of the processing unit being
cooled and adjust the pump based on that measured value. Id. at 55–58
(citing Ex. 1008, 5:66–6:16), 63. Petitioner reasons that skilled artisans
would have had reason to include Cheon’s teachings “to provide an
automatic mechanism to control pump speed for purposes of power
conservation.” Id. at 56. Petitioner asserts further that the modification
would “further increase the longevity of the pump by selectively activating
when needed.” Id. at 56–57. Petitioner points out that all three references
(Batchelder, Shin, and Cheon) are directed to low-cost, high-reliability
computer-cooling systems. Id. at 57.
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

27

Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertions against
claims 4 and 19, other than through the independent claims addressed above.
See PO Resp. 42. We have considered the full record, including Patent
Owner’s arguments for the independent claims and objective indicia of
nonobviousness, and find Petitioner’s contentions persuasive for claims 4
and 19. See Pet. 54–58, 62–63.
2. Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 8;
claim 14 therefore requires a “control system . . . configured to adjust a
speed of the pump” and “configured to adjust a rotational speed of a fan and
a rotational speed of the pump to reduce noise and provide a required
cooling capacity of the cooling system.” Ex. 1001, 20:3–5, 19–22.
Petitioner asserts that fans for cooling were commonplace at the time
of patenting, as the ’354 patent shows “the typical components in a liquid-
cooling type CPU cooling arrangement” of the prior art as including a fan.
Pet. 61 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:7–9, 8:1–18, Fig. 3). Petitioner reasons that
using such a fan would have had “a known air cooling effect and potential
associated noise.” Id. at 62. Thus, Petitioner explains the benefit that would
have motivated using a fan (its air-cooling effect) and a tradeoff it would
involve (associated noise).
Petitioner relies on Shin as disclosing a pump motor with easily
controlled speed to permit “control of cooling power.” Pet. 59 (quoting
Ex. 1007 ¶ 19). Petitioner notes that Shin’s implementation shows a fan in
the computer case into which Shin’s cooling device is installed. Id. (citing
Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–24, Fig. 3). Petitioner reasons that a skilled artisan “would
know that someone who has such concerns about controlling the speed of
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

28

the pump would have the same concerns about controlling the speed of the
fan.” Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 137). Petitioner relies on Cheon’s disclosures
asserted against claim 4 to argue that skilled artisans would have used
Cheon’s methods to control pump and fan speed to “conserve[e] power and
. . . increase[e] longevity of components when they are not needed.” Id.
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 130).
Thus, Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have had reason to
use a fan for the additional cooling it provided, as was known in the art, and
would have used Cheon’s control method to automatically control the speed
of both the circulating pump and the fan, in order to conserve power and
maximize component life. See Pet. 55–62. Patent Owner disputes those
assertions, arguing that Petitioner has not shown the prior art discloses claim
14’s control system “configured to adjust a rotational speed of a fan and a
rotational speed of a pump.” PO Resp. 42–46.
Patent Owner first points out that neither Shin nor Cheon disclose
controlling fan speed. Id. at 42–44. We agree, but as discussed, Petitioner
asserts that skilled artisans would have recognized the desire to control the
speed of a fan once included in a system, because the fan would have an
associated noise that would be addressed by controlling its speed, as the
references disclose for pump motors. Pet. 61. Patent Owner argues further
that it would not have been obvious to use a single control system for both
the pump motor and fan speeds, and that “the obvious configuration would
have been to use two separate control systems (not ‘a’ system).”
PO Resp. 44. Patent Owner relies on the specification’s disclosure of
controlling the pump and fan speed in coordination, “so that the regulation
and feedback mechanisms take into account both the cooling capacity and
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

29

‘which of the two cooling means, i.e., the pump and the air fan, is generating
the most noise.’” Id. at 45 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:4–12). Petitioner challenges
Patent Owner’s reasoning, as Shin already discloses a control system for its
pump motor, thus providing a natural location for the fan-motor control
system. Reply 24.7 Regardless of whether Patent Owner is correct that using
two control systems would have been obvious (PO Resp. 46; PO Sur-
Reply 21), that does not undermine Petitioner’s contention that modifying
Shin’s control system to also control a fan would have been obvious.
Patent Owner’s position appears to read into the claim a requirement
for coordination between the pump and fan speed. See PO Resp. 45–46
(arguing that Shin lacks a control system where “regulation of fan speed and
pump speed can take into account the overall noise generation” as described
in the ’354 patent). The claims recite no such requirement, and the plain
language of “a control system” encompasses separate circuits that
collectively control both speeds. Indeed, a “system” will often include
multiple components to accomplish a particular function. Moreover, the
plain meaning of “a” control system encompasses multiple control systems.
See Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that generally the word “a” in a patent claim
generally carries the meaning of “one or more”). Patent Owner expressly
contends that no construction is required to elaborate on the plain meaning

7 Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s argument as untimely for first
appearing in the Reply. PO Sur-Reply 20–21. We do not agree, as the
Petition asserted that skilled artisans had reason to configure a system “to
adjust the speed of a pump as well as a fan.” Pet. 61. That sufficiently
asserts a combined control system such that Petitioner’s Reply argument
appropriately addresses Patent Owner’s Response argument.
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

30

of the claim terms at issue. PO Resp. 6–7. Thus, although Patent Owner
argues that “a control system” cannot encompass “one or more control
systems” (id. at 45), Patent Owner does not explain how the asserted
combination lacks “a control system” other than to rely on the
specification’s disclosure of coordinated control. Patent Owner does not
provide a persuasive basis on which to read that coordinated-control
approach into the nonrestrictive claim language. We therefore do not limit
the claims to a preferred embodiment. We find that Petitioner’s proposed
system, in which a fan is used to improve the radiator’s cooling and Shin’s
pump control is modified to control both the pump and fan motors, includes
“a control system” as claimed.
We have considered the full record, including Patent Owner’s
arguments for the independent claims and objective indicia of
nonobviousness, and find Petitioner’s contentions persuasive for claim 14.
III. CONCLUSION8
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Petitioner has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
In summary:

8 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue
application or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we
remind Patent Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of
any such related matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

31

Claims

35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis
Claims
Shown
Unpatentable
Claims
Not Shown
Unpatentable
1, 8, 15 103 Batchelder, Shin 1, 8, 15
4, 14, 19 103
Batchelder, Shin,
Cheon
4, 14, 19
Overall
Outcome

1, 4, 8, 14, 15,
19

IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 15, and 19 of the ’354 patent are
unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2020-00523
Patent 10,078,354 B2

32

PETITIONER:
Heath Briggs
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
briggsh@gtlaw.com

PATENT OWNER:
Eric Raciti
Arpita Bhattacharyya
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P
eric.raciti@finnegan.com
arpita.bhattacharyya@finnegan.com