Ex Parte Alshinnawi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 20, 2018

13911159 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/911,159 06/06/2013 Shareef F. Alshinnawi
127893 7590 07/24/2018
Streets Lawfirm, PC - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
20319 Corbin Creek Drive
Cypress, TX 77433
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
XRPS920130029US1 8069
EXAMINER
MALIK, RAHEENA REHMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2018 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):
j streets@streetsiplaw.com
jstreets@patent-law.cc
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SHAREEF F. ALSHINNAWI, GARYD. CUDAK,
EDWARDS. SUFFERN, and J. MARK WEBER1
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911,159
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and BRENT M. DOUGAL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Shareef F. Alshinnawi et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-10 and 17-
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Lenovo Enterprise
Solutions (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
BACKGROUND
Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, represents the claimed
invention.
1. A rear door heat exchanger, comprising:
a door frame have opposing first and second edges;
a fluid supply manifold secured along the first edge of
the door frame;
a fluid return manifold secured along the second edge of
the door frame;
a fin tube assembly including a plurality of fin tubes
extending across a central region of the rear door heat
exchanger and forming an air flow pathway through the fin tube
assembly;
an actuator having a first end secured to the door frame
and a second end secured to the fin tube assembly for
controllably moving the fin tube assembly from a retracted
position to an extended position relative to the door frame; and
a plurality of supply pipe coupling assemblies, each
supply pipe coupling assembly providing fluid communication
from the fluid supply manifold to one of the plurality of fin
tubes; and
a plurality of return pipe coupling assemblies, each return
pipe coupling assembly providing fluid communication from
one of the plurality of fin tubes to the fluid return manifold.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Werner (US 2009/0046429 Al, pub. Feb. 19,
2009), Bash (US 7,170,745 B2, iss. Jan. 30, 2007), and Wei (US
2009/0116186 Al, pub. May 7, 2009). Final Act. 3.
II. Claims 2-5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Werner, Bash, Wei, and Deeds (US 149,842, iss. Apr. 21,
187 4 ). Final Act. 9.
2
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
III. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Werner, Bash, Wei, and Wang (US 2006/0034051 Al, pub. Feb. 16,
2006). Final Act. 15.
IV. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Werner, Bash, Wei, and Campbell (US 2013/0104399 Al, pub. May 2,
2013). Final Act. 16.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I- Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 18-20
Claims 1, 7, 18, and 20
Appellants argue claims 1, 7, 18, and 20 as a group. Appeal Br. 10-
18. We select independent claim 1 as representative. Claims 7, 18, and 20
stand or fall with claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Werner discloses, inter
alia, a rear door heat exchanger (rear panel 120'), comprising a door frame
with opposing first and second edges, a fluid supply manifold secured along
the first door frame edge, a fluid return manifold secured along the second
door frame edge, a fin tube assembly with plural fin tubes forming an air
flow pathway through the fin tube assembly. Final Act. 3 (citing Werner
Fig. 5B, ,r,r 31 :24--29, 36: 1-3, 57:3--4). The Examiner finds that Werner
does not disclose an actuator having a first end secured to the door frame
and a second end secured to the fin tube assembly for controllably moving
the fin tube assembly from a retracted position to an extended position. Id.
at 4. The Examiner finds, however, that Bash discloses an actuator 82,
having a first end 90 secured to a door frame 12 and a second end 86 secured
to a door heat exchanger 20, which "moves the door heat exchanger (20)
3
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
from a retracted position to an extended position relative to the door frame
(12)." Id. at 4--5 (citing Bash Figs. 1 and 4A, 4: 17-31, 7:44--46 and 55-56).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art to add Bash's actuator to Werner's system "to control the amount of
heated air leaving the enclosure (Bash, col. 3, lines 51-55), thereby reducing
the energy require[ d] to operate the cooling system for the data center (Bash,
col. 3, lines 55-60)." Id. at 5.
The Examiner then finds that Werner, as modified, does not disclose
plural supply pipe coupling assemblies providing fluid communication from
the fluid supply manifold to the fin tubes, or plural return pipe coupling
assemblies providing fluid communication from one of the plurality of fin
tubes to the fluid return manifold. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that
Wei discloses supply pipe couplings 21 providing fluid communication
between a fluid supply manifold and fin tubes 17, and return pipe couplings
21 providing fluid communication between fin tubes 1 7 and a return
manifold. Id. (citing Wei Fig. 3). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Werner "by adding supply and return coupling
between the manifolds and the fin tubes as taught by Wei, [ to more quickly]
assemble and disassemble []each heat exchanger for maintenance." Id. at 6.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that Werner's rear panel 120' is
not a door, and that Werner's frame 154 is therefore not a door frame.
Appeal Br. 10-11.
The Examiner contends that Appellants' Specification does not
provide a special definition for the term "door frame," which the Examiner
interprets as "using its plain and ordinary definition as an open structure that
holds something." Ans. 2. We further note that the term "door" is defined
4
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
as "a usually swinging or sliding barrier by which an entry is closed or
opened." https ://www. merriam-we b ster. com/ dictionary/ door (last visited
July 10, 2018).
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants do not explain why
Werner's rear panel of heat exchangers 120', which is a sliding barrier
providing access to the enclosure 110, is not a door. We find that Werner's
rear panel 120' can reasonably be identified as a door, in which case the
frame 154 on which it rests is reasonably identified as a door frame.
Appellants also argue that Werner does not disclose supply and return
manifolds "secured" along respective edges of the door frame, because each
manifold "slides side to side" along the edges of frame 154. Appeal Br. 11-
12.
The Examiner responds that "the term 'secured' does not necessarily
imply immobility of the fluid supply and return manifolds." Ans. 2. Indeed,
Appellants have not provided a definition of the term "secured" that
excludes relative movement. Considering Appellants' Specification, we are
not persuaded that being secured necessarily excludes relative movement, in
which case we are not persuaded that the attachment of Werner's manifolds
to its frame 154 via the rear panel 120' fails to provide the "secured" feature
as recited.
Appellants next argue that Bash does not disclose a door heat
exchanger, a door, or a door frame, because its angled panel 20 "is merely a
means of directing airflow out of the rack 10." Appeal Br. 12-13.
The Examiner responds, inter alia, that Bash is not relied on for
disclosing these features, but rather for its disclosure of an actuator 82 that
moves a vent wall 22 relative to a frame 12. Ans. 3; In re Keller, 642 F.2d
5
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
413,426 (CCPA 1981) ("one cannot shownonobviousness by attacking
references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations
of references"); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We agree with the Examiner that these arguments are not persuasive because
Appellants are arguing the references individually, and Bash is not relied on
for disclosing a door heat exchanger, a door, or a door frame.
Appellants further argue that Bash' s actuator 82 is not secured to a
door frame and a fin tube assembly as claimed, and that Bash's "drive
member 90 (the alleged first end of the actuator) is attached to [its] rack 10,"
whereas "Werner's 'frame 154' is not part of [its] rack." Appeal Br. 14.
Appellants have not, however, addressed the Examiner's proposed
combination by explaining why it would not have been obvious to modify
Werner to include Bash's actuator 82, attaching one end of the actuator 82 to
Werner's door frame 154 and another end of the actuator 82 to Werner's fin
tube assembly located in its door 120'. The actuator would then move
Werner's fin tube assembly (via door 120') to extended and retracted
positions (see Werner Fig. 5B) relative to the frame 154.
Appellants lastly argue that the combination of Werner and Bash
"do[es] not disclose the invention as a whole." Appeal Br. 15. According to
Appellants, Werner's frame 154 moves with its rear panel 120', such that an
actuator could not have a first end attached to its frame 154 and a second end
attached to its fin tube assembly (on rear panel 120') to move the fin tube
assembly relative to the door frame. Id. at 16; see Werner Fig. 5B.
We determine that consideration of Werner's Fig. 5B refutes this
argument. Werner's Fig. 5B discloses that, as its door 120' moves from a
retracted position to an extended position ( as shown), the frame 154 on
6
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
which the door 120' slides remains stationary but attached to the door 120'.
This is accomplished via sliding assemblies 152 that move with the rear
panel 120' while remaining coupled to the frame 154. See Werner ,r 61.
Because we discern no error in the Examiner's findings and
conclusions that form the basis for the rejection of claim 1, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Claims 7, 18, and 20 fall with claim 1.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites a "first sealing plate
extending from a first edge of the fin tube assembly to the first edge of the
door frame when the fin tube assembly is in the retracted position," and "a
second sealing plate extending from a second edge of the fin tube assembly
to the second edge of the door frame when the fin tube assembly is in the
retracted position."
The Examiner finds that Werner discloses this limitation, with a first
sealing plate located along a top of frame 154 and a second sealing plate
located along a bottom of frame 154. Final Act. 6-7 (see annotated version
of Werner's Fig. 5B).
Appellants argue that the claim recites sealing plates extending from
the fin tube assembly to the door frame, whereas Werner's sealing plates
extend from its door frame 154 to its server rack (in enclosure 110).
The Examiner does not explain why one skilled in the art would
understand the designated structure in Werner to provide the claimed
sealing. Further, it is indeed unclear whether the designated structure, if it is
indeed a "sealing plate," would seal the fin tube assembly (at 120') to the
door frame 154 ( as proposed by the Examiner) or the door frame 154 to the
server rack (as proposed by Appellants).
7
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
For this reason, we determine that the rejection of claim 6 is not
supported by substantial evidence. We do not sustain the rejection of claim
6.
Claims 9 and 19
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites "a hinge secured to one
edge of the door frame for attachment to a rack." Claim 19 depends from
claim 18 and recites "a hinge secured to the first edge of the door frame for
hinged attachment to a rack."
The Examiner finds that Bash discloses a hinge 26 secured to an edge
of its door frame 12 for attaching the door frame 12 to the rack 10. Final
Act. 8 (citing Bash Fig. 1, 4:40-43).
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to provide a reason why one
skilled in the art would modify Werner to include the hinge of Bash. Appeal
Br. 17.
The Examiner responds that the recitations of "for attachment to a
rack" is intended use, and that it would have been obvious "to use Bash's
teachings of a hinge and apply it to Werner's door frame ... to simplify the
motion of the frame from the rack." Ans. 4.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 19 because the
Examiner has provided insufficient reasoning regarding the "how" and
"why" of adding Bash's hinge to Werner's door frame 154 and rack. One
certainly would not add the hinge unless the hinge was intended to assist
attachment and/or relative movement of Werner's door frame 154 relative to
its rack, but the rejection does not explain how the hinge would be employed
to provide such attachment and/or relative movement assistance, such that it
is unclear what the Examiner's basis is for reasoning that provision of the
8
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
hinge would "simplify the motion of the frame from the rack" (Ans. 4). For
this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 19.
For the reasons explained above, we sustain Rejection I as it applies to
claims 1, 7, 18, and 20, but not as it applies to claims 6, 9, and 19.
Rejection II- Claims 2-5 and 17
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites each pipe coupling
assembly including cooling fins. The Examiner finds the disclosure in
Deeds' fins 8, concluding that it would have been obvious to add Deeds'
cooling fins 8 "to each of the pipe coupling assembly" to "increase the
surface area and therefore, increase the heat transfer rate." Final Act. 9-10
(see annotated Figs. 1 and 5 of Deeds). Although not specifically stated in
the rejection, we understand the Examiner to be applying Deeds' fins to
W emer as modified by Wei because Wei is relied on to teach the claimed
pipe coupling assembly (see Final Act. 5).
Appellants argue that "one having ordinary skill in the art would not
consider the 'rods g' of[] Deeds to be 'cooling fins"' because the rods g "are
confined to the enveloping tube F" and, therefore, would be "ineffectual as
cooling fins in the context of the rear door heat exchanger of Applicant's
claims." Appeal Br. 18.
The Examiner responds that claim 2 does not recite any "structural
features to distinguish the [claimed] fins from [Deeds'] rods (g)" because the
modifier "cooling" of "fins" is "a recitation of the intended use of the
claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the
claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the
claimed invention from the prior art." Ans. 4. The Examiner concludes that
9
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
it would have been obvious to include the rods into Werner's pipe coupling
assembly "to increase surface area, thereby increasing heat exchange." Id.
The Examiner proposes to add Deeds' rods g to the pipe coupling
assembly of the combination of Werner and Wei to increase cooling by
increasing surface area and, thus, heat exchange. Id. The Examiner does
not, however, explain ( 1) how Deeds' rods g, which are not designed for
cooling, could be utilized as proposed to provide cooling/increase heat
exchange, or (2) why one skilled in the art would look to Deeds' rods g for
such cooling. Regarding rods g, Deeds - drawn to flexible jointed metallic
pipes for railroad cars- only states: "the double rings G and G' are
connected together by means of rods g." Deeds 2:40-44. The Examiner's
rejection lacks substantial evidence. We do not sustain the rejection of claim
2.
Claims 3-5
Claims 3-5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Appellants
make no argument that claims 3-5 would be patentable if claim 1 is not
patentable over Werner, Bash, and Wei. We, therefore, sustain the rejection
of claims 3-5.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 3 and recites "each pipe coupling
assembly unfold[ing] in a controlled and repeatable manner as the fin tube
assembly moves from the retracted position to the extended position," and as
"the fin tube assembly moves from the extended position to the retracted
position." The Examiner finds that Werner, as modified by Bash, Wei, and
Deeds, teaches "each pipe coupling assembly ... unfold[ing] in a controlled
10
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
and repeatable manner as the fin tube assembly ... moves from the retracted
position to the extended position," and "from the extended position to the
retracted position." Final Act. 15 ("due to the flexibility provided by the
pivot coupling, the pipe coupling assembly is capable of unfolding in a
controlled manner when the rear door heat exchanger is extended" ( citing
Deeds 2:25-28)).
Appellants argue that, in the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner
modifies Werner to includes Wei's pipe couplings, but in the rejection of
claim 1 7 appears to propose using Deeds' pipe couplings rather than Wei's,
and further contends that Deeds' "pipe couplings would fold and unfold in
response to extension/retraction of the fin tube assembly" without providing
a "motivation for using Deed's pipe coupling in Werner's rear panel 120[']."
Appeal Br. 19-20. According to Appellants, Deeds' pipe coupling would
not fold or unfold if added to the Examiner's proposed combination of
references because Werner's rear panel 120' "is an integral unit." Id. at 20.
The Examiner responds that "the fact that Werner's rear panel is an
integral unit has no bearing on the flexibility of the pipe coupling," and one
skilled in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Deeds' flexible
pipe couplings "into Werner's heat exchanger ... to decrease stress by
providing flexibility in the pipe to provide a more reliable operation of the
computer rack system." Ans. 5.
While it may be true that one skilled in the art would understand that
flexible couplings can decrease stress by providing flexibility in a pipe, the
Examiner has not explained why substituting Deeds' flexible couplings into
Werner's integral unit would provide any flexibility and decreased stress in
the resulting arrangement. If components of an integral structure do not
11
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
move relative to each other, a flexible coupling therebetween would not
experience any stress from relative movement to reduce. We, therefore, are
not persuaded that the Examiner's reasoning has a rational underpinning,
and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17.
Rejections III and IV
Appellants present no arguments that claims 8 and 10 would be
patentable if claim 1 is not patentable over Werner, Bash, and Wei. For the
reasons set forth above regarding claim 1, we sustain Rejections III and IV.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 7, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Werner, Bash, and Wei.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 6, 9, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Werner, Bash, and Wei.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Werner, Bash, Wei, and Deeds.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 2 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Werner, Bash, Wei, and Deeds.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Werner, Bash, Wei, and Wang.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Werner, Bash, Wei, and Campbell.
12
Appeal2017-001255
Application 13/911, 159
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13