Ex Parte Stefanoski

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2009

11273904 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ZORAN STEFANOSKI
________________

Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,9041
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided:2 June 11, 2009
________________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MARK NAGUMO, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 Application 11/273,904, Drive Bay Heat Exchanger, filed
14 November 2005. The specification is referred to as the
“904 Specification,” and is cited as “Spec.” The real party in interest is
listed as NVIDIA Corporation. (Appellant’s Brief, filed 7 March 2008
(“Br.”), 3.)
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,904
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. Introduction
Zoran Stefanoski (“Stefanoski”) timely appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection3 of claims 1-23, which are all of
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We
AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a cooling system having a
liquid heat exchange medium, the system being sized to fit in a drive bay of
a computing device. Such cooling devices are said to accommodate in small
spaces increasingly powerful integrated circuit chips that dissipate
increasing amounts of heat.
Representative Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to
the Principal Brief on Appeal:
1. A system for cooling a heat-generating device, the system
comprising:
a housing sized to fit within a drive bay of a computing device;
a heat exchanger disposed within the housing and configured to
transfer heat from liquid to air
a fan disposed within the housing and configured to force air
through the heat exchanger and exhaust the air out of the
housing to an interior of the computing device; and
a pump disposed within the housing and configured to circulate
a liquid through

3 Office action mailed 20 September 2007 (“Final Rejection”; cited as
“FR”).
2
Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,904
a cold plate sub-assembly and back to the heat
exchanger, wherein the cold plate sub-assembly is
configured to be thermally coupled to the heat-generating
device.
(Claims App., Br. 14; indentation and paragraphing added.)
The Examiner has maintained4 the rejection of claims 1-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Chien5 and
Coglitore.6
In the Principal Brief on Appeal, Stefanoski argues that claims 1
and 12 are patentable over the applied prior art because Chien neither
teaches nor suggests “that the rack illustrated in Figure 6 of Chien can be
sized to fit within the drive bay of a computer, as recited in the pending
claims.” (Br. 10-11.) Stefanoski argues further that the importance of the
size limitation is “further clarified” by the recitations in dependent claim 7,
which specifies that the drive bay is a standard-size drive bay, and claim 8,
which specifies a 3.5 inch or 5.25 inch size drive bay. (Id. at 11-12.)
Stefanoski further criticizes the Examiner’s reliance on Chien, arguing that
the plurality of vents at the front side of rack 81 are to “allow hot air to be
carried out from the computer 8, rather than being trapped inside the
computer, which Chien recognized as the problem with prior art systems.”
(Id. at 10-11, citing Chien, col. 1, ll. 27-29.)

4 Examiner’s Answer mailed 2 May 2008. (“Ans.”).
5 Chuan-Fu Chien, CPU Cooling System, U.S. Patent 6,166,907 (2000).
6 Giovanni Coglitore et al., Computer Chassis for Dual Offset Opposing
Main Boards, U.S. Patent 6,667,891 B2 (2003).
3
Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,904
Chien’s argument against the combined teachings of Chien and
Coglitore reads in its entirety:
The Applicant has clearly explained why Chien does not teach
or suggest a cooling system and related housing sized to fit
within a drive bay of a computing device. Further, the
Applicant explained that Coglitore does not cure the
deficiencies of Chien. Thus, the combination of these
references cannot render any of the pending claims obvious.
(Br. 12.)
The Examiner maintains that Chien teaches all the features recited in
the claims but for the requirement that air be exhausted from the cooling
system housing into the interior of the cooling device. (FR 2.) The
Examiner finds, however, that Coglitore teaches a “system for cooling a
heat-generating device where fans (76) disposed within a housing (fig. 4)
force air through a heat exchanger (222) and exhaust the air out of the
housing to an interior of the computing device (fig. 5).” (Id.) The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of Chien to
“create a backspace airflow which aids the air flowing through the housing
by either producing a positive or negative pressure depending whether it
would be preferred to have the air flowing out of or into the front of the
housing.” (Id. at 2-3.)
The issue dispositive of this appeal is whether Stefanoski has shown
that Chien does not teach or suggest a cooling system and housing sized to
fit within a drive bay of a computing device.
4
Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,904
B. Findings of Fact
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
The 904 Specification
1. According to the 904 Specification, there is a need for “a standardized
liquid cooling system that may be easily implemented across a wide variety
of computing devices.” (Spec. 3, ¶ [0005].)
2. This need is met by providing a liquid-based heat exchanger that is
“sized to fit within a drive bay of a computing device.” (Spec. 3, ¶ [0006].)
3. The 904 Specification refers to such a heat exchanger as a “drive bay
heat exchanger” or “DBHA.” (Spec. 4, ¶ [0009].)
4. In the words of the 904 Specification, “computing device 100 may be
any type of computing device having a chassis that includes a standard-sized
drive bay. For example, computing device 100 may be a desktop or laptop
computer, a server or a mainframe computer.” (Spec. 5, ¶ [0014].)
5. The 904 Specification instructs further that “[p]referably, the DBHA
is sized to fit within either of these standard-sized [3.5″ or 5.25″] drive bays.
Alternatively, the DBHA 200 may be sized to fit other sized drive bays, such
as a 3.5″ server drive bay or a 2.5″ laptop drive bay.” (Spec. 6, ¶ [0016].)
5
Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,904
Chien
6. As illustrated in Figure 6, which is reproduced below,

{Chien Figure 6 is said to show a computer with a cooling system}7
Chien provides a CPU cooling system mounted in a rack 81 installed in the
“mainframe” of a computer 8. (Chien, col. 3, ll. 30-31.)
7. The CPU cooling system is illustrated in Figure 3, which is
reproduced in part below:

{Chien (partial) Figure 3 is said to show part of a CPU cooling system}

7 The text in curly braces following the Figures is provided to ensure
compliance with § 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act for publication of this
Opinion on the USPTO website pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.
It is not part of the Opinion.
6
Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,904
and in Figure 4, which is reproduced in full below.

{Chien Figure 4 is said to show an exploded diagram of a cooling system}
8. As shown in partial Figure 3, CPU 3 is cooled by a liquid coolant
passing through radiator 1, which is connected by circulation pipes 126 and
pump 414 (not shown here: see full Fig. 3) (Chien, col. 2, ll. 42-43, 48-52) to
the cooling system, an exploded view of which is shown in Figure 4.
9. As shown in Figure 4, coolant fluid is cooled by water tank 4, which
is mounted with heat sink 41, which comprises a plurality of radiation
fins 411, and by radiator 6, which is fitted with radiating fins 61, which are
cooled via fans 62. (Chien, col. 3, ll. 10-22.)
10. Chien does not teach exhausting hot air from the radiating fins into the
interior of the computing device.
7
Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,904
Coglitore
11. Coglitore describes, inter alia, cooling systems for main boards
holding heat-generating components, especially CPUs, in computers.
(Coglitore, col. 6, l. 45, to col. 7, l. 2.)
12. Regarding a chassis holding a first main board 14 and a second main
board 204, Coglitore teaches that
[a]ny desired airflow may travel from the front section to the
rear section. Alternately, it may travel in the other direction
. . . [t]he direction of air flow may be set depending on the
desired effect on the environment or even be switchable to
account for changing environmental conditions.
(Coglitore, col. 7, ll. 3-8.)
13. Regarding computers arranged as a stack of chassis held in a cabinet,
illustrated in Figure 5 (not shown here), Coglitore teaches that:
[o]n top of the cabinet, hood 130 with fans 146 may be
employed to assist airflow 216, which may move in either
direction, in backspace 106 between two stacks of chassis 96.
Backspace airflow 216 aids the airflow by producing either a
positive or negative pressure assist corresponding to whether
airflow out of or into the front of the chassis is preferred
respectively.
(Coglitore, col. 9, ll. 35-41.)
C. Discussion
As the Appellant, Stefanoski bears the procedural burden of showing
harmful error in the Examiner’s rejections. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can
overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of
8
Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,904
prima facie obviousness”) (citation and internal quote omitted). Arguments
not timely presented have been waived, absent a showing of good cause.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), second sentence.
Initially, we note that Stefanoski has not argued the separate
patentability of any claims other than claims 1, 7, and 8. Accordingly, we
limit our discussion to these claims. All the other appealed claims stand or
fall with claim 1. Moreover, Stefanoski has limited substantive argument to
the alleged failure of Chien to describe or suggest a cooling system sized to
fit in the drive bay of a computing device. Stefanoski’s reference to other
arguments relating to Coglitore (Br. 12, quoted supra) lack substance.
Moreover, the Examiner’s statement of rejection and responses to
Stefanoski’s arguments in the Final Rejection are essentially reproduced in
the Examiner’s Answer. Thus, Stefanoski’s arguments in the Reply Brief8
addressing Coglitore (Reply Br. 2) and claim 23 (Id. at 2-4) are untimely and
will not be considered, good cause not having been shown why those
arguments could not have been presented in the Principal Brief on Appeal.
On the merits, we observe that the 904 Specification does not provide
a definition for the term “drive bay,” nor does it provide any idiosyncratic
definitions of the term “computing device.” Indeed, the 904 Specification
indicates that the computing device “may be a desktop or laptop computer, a
server or a mainframe computer” (Spec. 5, ¶ [0014])—i.e., that the
computing device may be of virtually any practical size. Stefanoski’s
arguments that Chien’s alleged failure to describe cooling systems housed in
a relevantly sized rack are thus without merit because any cooling system

8 Reply Brief filed 3 June 2008, cited as “Reply Br.”
9
Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,904
that can fit in any drive bay is within the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Moreover, as the predecessor to our reviewing court explained long ago,
"[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Stefanoski has
failed to come forward with any credible evidence or explanation of why a
person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated, or
would have been unable, to adapt the cooling apparatus taught by Chien to
any drive bay within the scope of claims 1, 7, or 8. Stefanoski’s emphasis
on the term “mainframe computer” (Br. 10, third paragraph), is misplaced,
because a cooling device that fits into a drive bay of a mainframe computer
is within the scope of claim 1.
As noted supra, Stefanoski failed to timely contest any other findings
of the Examiner. We therefore conclude that Stefanoski failed to prove
harmful error in the Examiner’s rejection.
D. Order
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Chien and Coglitore.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
10
Appeal 2009-001704
Application 11/273,904

ssl

PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P.
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD
SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
11