Ex Parte Makooi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 27, 2009

10947895 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BABAK B. MAKOOI, GEORGE ANDREW GUZIK, GUY A.
COLE, ARTHUR JAMES CROONE, EARL EDWARDS, DON D.
HARLAN, CHRISTIAN POLACEK-ATTENBERGER,
and SIEGWALD SCHUSTER
____________

Appeal 2009-012421
Application 10/947,895
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: October 27, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 5-9, 11, 12, and 14-16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appeal 2009-012421
Application 10/947,895

2
We AFFIRM.
Statement of the Case
Appellants claim an apparatus and method for retarding a fire
condition in a telecommunications box comprising first and second
ventilators (i.e., fans) 208 and openings 222, 224 which are respectively
mounted on opposite ends of the telecommunications box (Figs. 2a, 2b;
claims 1, 11, 12).
Representative claims 1, 5, 7, and 11 read as follows:
1. An apparatus for retarding a fire condition of a
telecommunications component mounted on a module to be
inserted into a telecommunications box, the module having a
first side and a second side generally opposed to the first side,
the apparatus comprising:
a first ventilator and opening therefor mounted in one end
of the telecommunications box; and
a second ventilator and opening therefor mounted in an
opposite end of the telecommunications box, the first and
second ventilators and their respective openings providing
respective inlet and exhaust air circulation at respective
opposite ends of the telecommunications box, providing an
airflow between the first and second sides of the module.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an air
flow guide being configured in a shape that simulates an air
flow resistance of another module adjacent to the module.
7. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein a planar face of
the fan is arranged substantially perpendicular to the direction
of the cross air flow.
Appeal 2009-012421
Application 10/947,895

3
11. An apparatus for retarding a fire condition of a
telecommunications component mounted on a module to be
inserted into a telecommunications box, the apparatus
comprising:
a first ventilator for cooling arranged above the
component;
a second ventilator for cooling arranged below the
component;
a temperature controller arranged in the vicinity of the
first ventilator to control the second ventilator.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of obviousness:

Nguyen US 6,594,148 B1 Jul. 15, 2003
Ziarnik US 6,873,883 B2 Mar. 29, 2005
Kubo US 6,888,725 B2 May 03, 2005
Malone US 6,922,337 B2 Jul. 26, 2005
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a):
Claims 1, 12, and 14 over Nguyen in view of Kubo;
Claims 5-9, 15, and 16 over Nguyen, Kubo, and Malone; and
Claim 11 over Nguyen, Kubo and Ziarnik.

Issues
The issues in this case are whether Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner’s conclusions that:
(1) It would have been obvious to provide the first and second
ventilators and openings of Nguyen at opposite ends of the
telecommunications box in view of Kubo, as required by, for
example, claim 1;
Appeal 2009-012421
Application 10/947,895

4

(2) Providing the module carrier of Nguyen’s
telecommunications box with dividers of the type taught by
Malone would satisfy the air flow guide limitations of claims 5
and 7; and

(3) It would have been obvious to provide Nguyen’s
telecommunications box with a ventilator temperature
controller in view of Ziarnik as required by claim 11.

Findings of Fact
The findings of fact set forth below are relevant to these issues:
Nguyen discloses a telecommunications box having first and
second ventilators and openings which are side by side and
which are disposed at either the top end or the bottom end of
the box. (Figs. 1-3, 5A-5C; col. 6, ll. 10-25).

Both Nguyen (col. 1, ll. 24-34) and Kubo (Abs.; Figs. 2, 6, 10,
12, 14, 16, 18) evince that it was known in the prior art to
provide ventilators and openings at respectively the top and
bottom ends of electronic devices such as telecommunications
equipment.

Malone discloses dividers for separating circuit cards or
modules in the card cage or module carrier of communications
equipment (Abs., para. bridging cols. 2-3, col. 3, ll. 4-53, col. 4,
ll. 45-54; Figs. 1, 2, 4).

Ziarnik discloses a fan temperature control system for
electronics equipment (Abs.).
Appeal 2009-012421
Application 10/947,895

5
Principles of Law
The following principle of law is relevant to the issues before us:
In assessing the obviousness of claims to a combination of prior
art elements, the question to be asked is whether the
improvement of the claimed combination is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions. KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., U.S. 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007).

Analysis and Conclusions of Law
Appellants argue that “[m]odifying Nguyen in view of Kubo by
placing the intake and exhaust openings of Nguyen at opposite ends of the
cabinet would change Nguyen’s principle of operation and defeat his
purpose” (App. Br., para. bridging 4-5).
We do not agree. Nguyen’s principle of operation and purpose relate
to the use of cooling air flow to contain and eventually extinguish fire in
electronic equipment (col. 6, ll. 10-13). This principle and purpose would
not be so changed as to prevent a conclusion of obviousness. To the
contrary, an obviousness conclusion is supported by the fact that it was
known in the prior art to dispose first and second ventilators and openings at
the top and bottom ends respectively of electronics equipment such as a
telecommunication box. This conclusion also is supported by the fact that
so-disposing such ventilators and openings constitutes nothing more than the
predictable use of these prior art elements according to their established
functions.
For these reasons and because the claims have not been separately
argued, Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s obviousness
Appeal 2009-012421
Application 10/947,895

6
conclusion in the rejection of claims 1, 12, and 14 over Nguyen in view of
Kubo. Therefore, we sustain this rejection.
Concerning the rejection based on Nguyen, Kubo, and Malone,
Appellants’ sole argument is that Malone’s dividers would not simulate air
flow resistance of a module as recited in claims 5 and 15 and do not have
planar faces perpendicular to the air flow as recited in claim 7 (App. Br. 7).
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. When used in the manner
taught by Malone, the dividers occupy a space in the card cage or modular
carrier which would be otherwise vacant. Therefore, these dividers would
necessarily provide air flow resistance at least relative to an otherwise vacant
space. Moreover, since the length of Malone’s dividers can be the same as
the cards or modules (col. 3, ll. 4-9), the air flow resistance of these dividers
would simulate the air flow resistance of the modules as required by claims
5 and 15. Finally, because the movable slats 406 of Malone’s dividers 400
control air flow through the planar member of the divider (col. 4, ll. 46-54,
Fig. 4 ), these dividers include a planar face which is arranged substantially
perpendicular to the direction of a cross air flow as required by claim 7.
In light of the foregoing, we also sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 5-9, 15, and 16 as being unpatentable over Nguyen, Kubo
and Malone.
As for the rejection of claim 11, Appellants argue that “Ziarnik shows
a temperature controller, but does not show a temperature controller in the
vicinity of a first ventilator to control a second ventilator in the opposite end
of the cabinet” (App. Br. 7).

Appeal 2009-012421
Application 10/947,895

7
This argument is directed to only what is shown in Ziarnik and
therefore fails to address what the combined teachings of the applied
references would have suggested to those with ordinary skill in this art. For
this reason, Appellants’ argument reveals no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion regarding claim 11. It follows that we also sustain
the § 103 rejection of this claim as being unpatentable over Nguyen, Kudo,
and Ziarnik.
Order
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kmm

SIEMENS CORPORATION
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830