Level 3 Communications, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2020

14192506 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/192,506 02/27/2014 Robert Ambriz 0444-US-U1 2284
83579 7590 04/29/2020
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
EXAMINER
MATEY, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2020 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):
patent.docketing@centurylink.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT AMBRIZ and NASSER NABIH EL-AAWAR
___________

Appeal 2019-000944
Application 14/192,506
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19 and 21. Claim 20 has been
cancelled.
An oral hearing was held on April 17, 2020. The record will include a
written transcript of the oral hearing. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Level 3
Communications, LLC. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-000944
Application 14/192,506

2
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a modular enclosure system for containing
and regulating the flow of air in and around a data center and gateway
facility equipment, including interconnectable walls and ceiling panels
adapted to enclose the equipment. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A modular enclosure system for containing and
regulating airflow around electronic equipment within a room,
the system comprising:
a plurality of interconnectable panels, each
interconnectable panel defining an outer edge with at least a
portion of the outer edge defining a first interconnection
pattern, the first interconnection pattern connectable to a
second interconnection pattern of an adjacent interconnectable
panel to form at least one of a parallel or orthogonal
interconnection between the adjacent interconnectable panels,
the plurality of interconnectable panels interconnecting to
form a first enclosure enclosing the electronic equipment within
the room and at least a portion of the airflow from a cool air
source, the first enclosure defining a first opening, the first
enclosure configured to intake the at least the portion of the
airflow through the first opening from the cool air source at a
first inflow rate into the first enclosure, wherein the at least the
portion of the airflow cools the electronic equipment, the first
enclosure further defining a second opening, the first enclosure
further configured to permit exhaustion of the at least the
portion of the airflow out of the first enclosure through the
second opening at a first outflow rate, the first enclosure sized
with the second opening at a flow-through area that regulates
the first outflow rate of the at least the portion of the airflow out
of the first enclosure through the second opening thereby
Appeal 2019-000944
Application 14/192,506

3
regulating the first inflow rate of the at least the portion of the
airflow into the first enclosure through the first opening.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Coglitore US 2005/0168945 A1 Aug. 4, 2005
Day US 2009/0173473 A1 July 9, 2009
Bravo et al. US 2010/0300027 A1 Dec. 2, 2010
Ksobiech et al. US 2014/0235133 A1 Aug. 21, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4–12, 14–16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Day and Bravo.
Claims 2, 3, and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Day, Bravo, and Coglitore.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Day, Bravo, Coglitore, and Ksobiech.

OPINION
§ 103 Rejection—Day and Bravo
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 9; see also
Reply Br. 3) that the combined teachings of Day and Bravo would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “the
first interconnection pattern connectable to a second interconnection pattern
of an adjacent interconnectable panel to form at least one of a parallel or
orthogonal interconnection between the adjacent interconnectable panels.”
Appeal 2019-000944
Application 14/192,506

4
The Examiner found that cabinet 30 of Day, for housing electronic
equipment, corresponds to the limitation “a first enclosure enclosing the
electronic equipment.” (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner further found that
module 10 of Bravo, which can interlock to form walls or ceilings,
corresponds to the limitation “the first interconnection pattern connectable to
a second interconnection pattern of an adjacent interconnectable panel to
form at least one of a parallel or orthogonal interconnection between the
adjacent interconnectable panels.” (Id. at 4.) The Examiner concluded that
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to have interconnectable
panels as taught by Bravo et al. as the modular enclosure
system of Day, because having such interconnectable panels,
enables an easy construction of the modular enclosure of Day,
thus enabling a thermal enclosure that can be easily and quickly
assembled.
(Id.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Bravo relates to modular surface platforms and panels (¶ 2), for
example, “prefabricated interlocking platform panels or modules” (¶ 9).
Bravo explains that “[t]he platform panels or modules interlock with each
other, providing a modular deck, floor, wall, ceiling, or roof surface.” (Id.)
Figure 5 of Bravo is reproduced below:

Appeal 2019-000944
Application 14/192,506

5
Figure 5 of Bravo illustrates a top perspective view of surface platform panel
or module 10, including tabs 21–25, male connector 35, and section “B”
with opening 36 (unlabeled). See also Fig. 6, ¶ 120 (“Rather, the male
connectors 35 or 55, when interconnected with the female receptacles 36 or
56 of an adjoining platform panel or module 10, suffice to secure side 13 to
the opposing in-line span joist 6.”). In particular, Bravo explains the
following:
In these embodiments, each male connector 35 comprises
a single tab 47—which is preferably resilient but may be
flexible—with an upwardly extending tongue or protuberance
48 (FIG. 7). Each corresponding female receptacle 36
comprises a catch 49 or opening 45 in the structural sublayer 30
dimensioned to engage the tongue 48 of the male connector 35
(FIG. 6). The catch 49 or opening 45 defines a shelf 46
operable to secure the mating male connector 35 of an adjoining
platform panel or module 10.
(¶ 123.)
Similarly, Figure 25 of Bravo is reproduced below:

Figure 25 of Bravo illustrates a top plan view of an interlocked pair of
platform panels or modules 10. Because Figure 25 of Bravo illustrates a pair
Appeal 2019-000944
Application 14/192,506

6
of platform panels or modules 10 interlocked in parallel, Bravo teaches the
limitation “the first interconnection pattern connectable to a second
interconnection pattern of an adjacent interconnectable panel to form at least
one of a parallel . . . interconnection between the adjacent interconnectable
panels.”
However, even if we interpreted claim 1 to require the capability of an
“orthogonal interconnection,”2 because Bravo explains that “[t]he platform
panels or modules [10] interlock with each other, providing a modular . . .
floor, wall, ceiling, or roof surface” (¶ 9) and because the benefits of
interconnectable panels within a single plane (e.g., a floor) would apply
equally to the connections between two planes (e.g., a floor and a wall) (¶ 8),
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify platform
panels 10 to interlock orthogonally, such that the modules could cover
floors, walls, and ceilings. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
421 (2007) (“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton”). For example, one of ordinary skill would
have modified the dimensions of interlocking tabs 21–25 and modified or
eliminated male connector 35 and opening 45, such that modules 10 could
interlock orthogonally (¶¶ 161–162), to achieve cabinet 30 of Day. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“the Court derived from the precedents the conclusion
that when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”).

2 Independent claim 17 more narrowly recites “to form an orthogonal
interconnection between the adjacent interconnectable panels” (i.e., omitting
the “parallel” option from claim 1).
Appeal 2019-000944
Application 14/192,506

7
Accordingly, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood Bravo also to teach or suggest the limitation
“orthogonal interconnection between the adjacent interconnectable panels.”
Appellant argues that “[t]here is no teaching in Bravo that would have
led one skilled in the art to modify the ‘platform panels or modules 10’ to
enclose any electronic equipment within the room” because “the panels of
Bravo are for a two dimensional surface – not designed to create an
enclosure.” (Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).) Similarly, Appellant argues
the following:
In other words, if a user attempted to orthogonally connect the
panels using the interconnection patterns disclosed by Bravo,
the tabs would not properly mate, which would prevent
formation of an enclosure. For example, the tabs of a vertically
positioned panel may protrude past an outer edge of the
horizontally positioned panel, which would prevent the
connected panels from lying flat on a surface. As previously
described in greater detail, the cuboidal cabinet formed by the
panels in Day cannot be formed from planar panel connections,
rather orthogonal panel connections are required. Therefore,
the interconnection patterns of the panels disclosed in Bravo
would be insufficient to provide the orthogonal panel
connections required to form the cabinet in Day.
(Reply Br. 3.) However, as discussed previously, Appellant’s arguments do
not take into account the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance in KSR, which
articulates that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Day
and Bravo would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “the first interconnection pattern connectable to a
second interconnection pattern of an adjacent interconnectable panel to form
Appeal 2019-000944
Application 14/192,506

8
at least one of a parallel or orthogonal interconnection between the adjacent
interconnectable panels.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Claims 4–12, 14–16, and 21 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has
not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4–12, 14–16, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection— Day, Bravo, and Coglitore
Claims 2 and 3
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1. Appellant merely argues that
“Coglitore . . . do[es] not make up for the deficiencies of Day and Bravo.”
(Appeal Br. 10.) We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1, from which claims 2 and 3 depend.
See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“In sum, we hold that
the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.”). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3.
Claims 17–19
Independent claim 17 recites the “orthogonal” limitation discussed
above with respect to independent claim 1. Appellant argues that
“[c]laim 17 is allowable over the cited references for at least similar reasons
as claim 1” (Appeal Br. 10), and “Coglitore does not make up for the
deficiencies described above with respect to Day and Bravo” (id. at 11). We
Appeal 2019-000944
Application 14/192,506

9
sustain the rejection of claim 17, as well as dependent claims 18 and 19, for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection—Day, Bravo, Coglitore, and Ksobiech
Claim 13 depends from claim 1. Appellant merely argues that
“Coglitore and Ksobiech do not make up for the deficiencies of Day and
Bravo.” (Appeal Br. 10.) We are not persuaded by this argument for the
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 13 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at
1357.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–19 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–12, 14–16,
21
103 Day, Bravo 1, 4–12, 14–16,
21

2, 3, 17–19 103 Day, Bravo,
Coglitore
2, 3, 17–19
13 103 Day, Bravo,
Coglitore,
Ksobiech
13
Overall
Outcome
1–19, 21

Appeal 2019-000944
Application 14/192,506

10
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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