Ex Parte Best et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 2, 2018

14860749 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/860,749 09/22/2015
22208 7590 11/06/2018
The Marbury Law Group, PLLC
11800 SUNRISE VALLEY DRIVE
15THFLOOR
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christiaan Scott Best
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.
34872-00lDIV 4683
EXAMINER
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3763
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/06/2018 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):
ptonotices@marburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAAN SCOTT BEST and MARK GARNETT
Appeal2017-010806
Application 14/860,749
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-12 and 14--23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Attlesey (US
2007/0267741 Al, pub. Nov. 22, 2007) and Carlson (US 2008/0029250 Al,
pub. Feb. 7, 2008). 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
1 Claims 1-12, 14--19, and 21-23 stand rejected on the ground of provisional
non-statutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of
copending Patent Application No. 14/667,091, now US 9,992,914 B2 (iss.
June 5, 2018). Final Act. 5--6; see also Ans. 5-6. Appellants request that
this rejection be held in abeyance because the claims of both applications
Appeal2017-010806
Application 14/860,749
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for cooling a plurality of servers containing heat
generating electronic components, the system comprising:
a tank comprising a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet;
a dielectric liquid; and
means for controlling temperatures of the dielectric liquid
such that the dielectric liquid enters the tank via the fluid inlet at
a first temperature equal to or greater than 90 degrees F and exits
the tank via the fluid outlet at a second temperature greater than
the first temperature.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1-12
Appellants argue claims 1-12 together. See Appeal Br. 8. We select
claim 1 as the representative claim and claims 2-12 stand or fall with claim
I. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Attlesey and Carlson disclose or suggest all
of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 7-9. In particular, the Examiner
finds that "Carlson discloses that it is known to deliver coolant at high
temperatures (p0042 '113°F'; p0057-58 temps of 50-104°F may be
selected; at p0058 'temperatures of... 104°F may be selected for supply
water')." Id. at 7-8 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that
may be amended. Appeal Br. 5. Thus, it appears that neither the Examiner
nor Appellants have considered the impact on this rejection of the issuance
of the '914 patent. Accordingly, it would be premature for us to consider
this rejection at this time. For this reason, we decline to reach this rejection.
SeeExparteMoncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI2010) (Precedential)
(Panels have the flexibility to not reach provisional obviousness-type
double-patenting rejections.).
2
Appeal2017-010806
Application 14/860,749
"Carlson recognizes th[at] coolant temperature [i]s a results effective
variable." Id. at 8. In support of this finding, the Examiner notes that
"[t]hroughout the disclosure Carlson discusses that higher cooling
temperatures reduce cooling costs (p0026, p0027, p0030, p0036, p0081 ),
and that higher temperatures are known (p0054), and further that one of skill
may select a temperature based on the allowable temperature of the rack
components (p0057)." Id. Based on these findings, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious "to have returned the dielectric
liquid of Attlesey at about 90°P (or from 100-110°P or up to 130°P) or
greater, being within a vend[ o Jr specified temperature range in order to
ensure proper operation of the electronic components" and to prevent
"failure or other adverse consequence of operation outside a specified
temperature range and to increase an efficiency of operation (p0006, 0057,
and 0081). Id. at 8-9.
Citing paragraph 26 of Carlson, Appellants contend that "Carlson
discloses cooling the servers with 70°F-77°F air, not water having
temperatures equal to or greater than 90 °Pas suggested by the Office."
Appeal Br. 6. Appellants further contend that the temperatures discussed in
paragraph 57 are the temperatures of the air plenums 104a, 104b, and the
exit temperature of the air, and that the temperatures discussed in paragraph
58 are temperatures of the cooling water, not the cooling air. See Appeal Br.
7. Given these contentions, Appellants assert that "Carlson does not teach or
suggest a 'means for controlling temperatures of the dielectric liquid ... "'
as required by claim 1. Id. at 8.
Responding to these arguments, the Examiner finds that "[ a ]t
paragraph 0058, the cooling water (supplied to cooling coils 112) is
disclosed as 104 °P." Ans. 15. Based on this finding, the Examiner reasons
3
Appeal2017-010806
Application 14/860,749
that "the temperature of the hot air passing from plenum 108 and being
cooled by the 104°F water within the cooling coils must inherently be at or
above 104° F when it enters the space containing servers at 102." Id.
( emphasis omitted). Thus, the Examiner concludes, "[ t ]he result of this
teaching as applied to the Attlesey reference would be obvious to one of
ordinary skill, yielding inlet temperatures of 104 ° F, in order to increase
efficiency as is taught by Carlson." Id.
In view of the Examiner's findings in the Answer, Appellants filed a
Reply Brief. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2), lacking a showing
of good cause, we do not consider the arguments raised in the Reply Brief
which are not responsive to an argument raised in the Answer. Appellants
present four new arguments in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 3-6.
Arguments A and B are clearly prompted by arguments raised in the Answer
and are addressed infra. It is not clear that argument C is responsive to the
Answer. See id. at 4---6. In the interest of fairness, however, we consider
this argument. Argument D is clearly not responsive to an argument raised
in the Answer as it pertains to a limitation not found in claim 1 ( the only
claim argued in the Appeal Brief). See id. at 6. Accordingly, we do not
consider this argument.
Argument A contends that Attlesey teaches away from using high
temperature cooling because Attlesey discusses the disadvantages of
allowing the components to operate at higher temperatures. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants note that "Attlesey discloses, '[t]he higher the temperature a
component operates at, the more likely it is to fail,"' and "'[ a ]lso, high
temperatures, while not causing catastrophic failures, can create data
processing errors. Operation at high temperatures can cause power
fluctuations that lead to these errors within a central processing unit ( CPU)
4
Appeal2017-010806
Application 14/860,749
or on the motherboard anywhere that data management is handled.'" Id.
( quoting Attlesey ,r 3). In view of these teachings, Appellants argue "one of
ordinary skill in the art reading Attlesey would not have been motivated to
use a hot, e.g. greater than 90 degrees F, cooling fluid because to do so
would result in power fluctuations leading to errors in the CPU and GPU2."
Id.
Attlesey's paragraph 3 is directed to the temperature of the
components, not the cooling fluid. Attlesey ,r 3. Thus, to the extent that
Attlesey's third paragraph can be said to teach away from anything, it
teaches away from operating components when their temperatures are high.
Attlesey, however, does not define what temperatures are considered to be
high component temperatures. See id. In the absence of such a teaching,
Attlesey would not discourage one skilled in the art from using the cooling
fluid temperatures disclosed by Carlson.
Appellants assert that a temperature of 90° F is a temperature at which
components are likely to fail, but Appellants do not provide evidentiary
support for this position. As discussed supra, Carlson discloses the use of a
cooling fluid at a temperature of 104° F to cool components similar to those
cooled in Attlesey. Compare Carlson ,r 2 ("This document relates to
systems and methods for providing cooling for areas containing electronic
equipment, such as computer server rooms and server racks in computer data
centers."), with Attlesey ,r 2 ("This disclosure relates to a liquid submersion
cooling system, and in particular, to a liquid submersion cooling system that
is suitable for cooling electronic devices including computer systems.").
Thus, on the record before us, a cooling fluid temperature of 104° Fis a low
2 Graphics processing unit.
5
Appeal2017-010806
Application 14/860,749
enough cooling temperature to cool the components disclosed by Attlesey.
Accordingly, Appellants' argument is unconvincing.
Argument B contends that rather than broadly teaching maintaining
"coolant temperatures high in order to increase efficiency, one of ordinary
skill [in the] art reading Carlson in its entirety would understand that the
problems associated with using a conventional heat cycle using air can be
overcome by operating above the dew point of the air." Reply Br. 4
( emphasis omitted). Noting that Attlesey "uses a dielectric coolant, not air,"
Appellants assert that "Attlesey does not suffer from the problems associated
with air cooling addressed by Carlson." Id. (emphasis omitted). Based on
this difference in cooling fluid, Appellants argue that "one of ordinary skill
in the art would not be motivated to combine Attlesey and Carlson as
suggested by the Office." Id.
Although Appellants are correct that one of the problems with which
Carlson is concerned is operation of a conventional heat cycle that uses air,
as noted by the Examiner, Carlson is also concerned with the reduction of
cooling cost and an increase in operation efficiency. See Final Act. 8; see
also, e.g., Carlson ,r,r 26, 27). Appellants do not adequately explain why
these teachings would not commend themselves to one skilled in the art at
the time of the invention. Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
Argument C contends that at the time of the invention typical facilities
would conserve the most energy when running between 7 5 °F and 80°F
(24 °C and 27°C). Reply Br. 4 ( citing David L. Moss, "Data Center
Operating Temperature: The Sweet Spot," Dell White Paper, Dell Center
Infrastructure, June 2011, page 3, lines 2--4). In view of this contention,
Appellants argue that:
6
Appeal2017-010806
Application 14/860,749
even if it were possible to control the device of Attlesey "such
that the dielectric liquid enters the tank via the fluid inlet at a first
temperature equal to or greater than 90 degrees F and exits the
tank via the fluid outlet at a second greater than the first
temperature," one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
configured the device to do so as demonstrated in the teachings
in the Dell White Paper.
Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted). Appellants further quote from "a copy of
Michael K. Patterson, 'The Effect Of Data Center Temperature On Energy
Efficiency', IEEE Xplore, pages 1167-1174), June 17 2008" in support of
this position. Neither of these papers consider the teachings of Carlson or
the combined teachings of Attlesey and Carlson. Thus, Appellants do not
apprise us of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
1 and claims 2-12 falling therewith.
Claims 14--23
Appellants do not present arguments specifically contesting the
rejection of claims 14--23. See generally Appeal Brief. At most, Appellants
rely on the same arguments and reasoning we found unpersuasive in
connection with independent claim 1 as the basis for seeking reversal of the
rejection of claims 14--23. Id. at 8. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
Examiner's decision rejecting these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 and 14--23 is AFFRIMED.
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
7