Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 9
`Entered: August 24, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, and JASON W. MELVIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 1 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 9
`Entered: August 24, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, and JASON W. MELVIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 1 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11,
`and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’355 patent”).
`Asetek Danemark A/S (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 6. We authorized Petitioner to file a Preliminary Reply (Paper 8).
`Paper 7. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have
`authority to determine whether to institute review.
`An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information
`presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the
`reasons set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one
`challenged claim, and we institute inter partes review.
`
`A. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`The Petition identifies CoolIT Systems, Inc. as the real party-in-
`interest for Petitioner. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies Asetek Danmark A/S,
`Asetek USA, Inc., Asetek A/S, and Asetek Holdings, Inc. as the real parties-
`in-interest for Patent Owner. Paper 4, 1 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`Notices).
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`The parties identify Asetek Danmark A/S v. CoolIT Systems, Inc., Case
`No. 3:19-cv-00410-EMC (N.D. Cal.) (served on February 7, 2019, currently
`pending) as the related co-pending district court litigation. Pet. 1;
`
`
`
`2
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 2 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`Paper 4, 1; PO Prelim. Resp. 2. The parties also identify the following
`pending petitions for inter partes review involving patents that are related to
`the ’355 patent: IPR2020-00523, Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 10,078,354 B2, filed on February 7, 2020; and IPR2020-00524,
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,933,681 B2, filed on
`February 7, 2020. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1.
`
`C. THE ’355 PATENT
`The ’355 patent is titled “Cooling System for a Computer System.”
`Ex. 1001, Code (54). It issued from an application filed June 19, 2017, as a
`continuation of application No. 13/861,593, which issued as Patent No.
`9,733,681 B2 and claims priority to a PCT application filed May 6, 2005. Id.
`at Code (63).
`The ’355 patent relates to a liquid-cooling system for a computer
`system. Id. at Code (57). The specification explains, at the time of the
`invention, air cooling arrangements were the most-used cooling system for
`cooling central processing units (CPUs) in computer systems. Id. at 1:17–33.
`An alternative design known at the time of the invention was to use a
`cooling liquid circulating inside a closed system by means of a pumping unit
`with a heat exchanger past which the cooling liquid circulates. Id. at 1:34–
`38. The specification contends that liquid cooling is generally more efficient
`and quieter than air cooling, but that a liquid cooling design consists of
`“many components,” which increases the total installation time, size, and
`risk of leakage of the cooling liquid from the system. Id. at 1:39–49. Thus,
`one object of the invention is to provide a small and compact liquid-cooling
`solution that is more efficient than existing air-cooling arrangements and can
`be produced at low cost enabling high production volumes, be easy-to-use
`3
`
`
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 3 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`and implement, can be used with existing CPU types and computer systems,
`and requires a low level of maintenance or no maintenance at all. Id. at
`1:53–63.
`An illustrative embodiment of such a device is depicted in Figures 7
`and 8, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 71 is a perspective view of the cooling system showing reservoir
`housing 14 with the heat exchanging surface 5 (shown in Figure 8) and the
`pump 21 (shown in Figure 8) inside the reservoir. Id. at 16:16–19. Figure 8
`is a cut-out view into reservoir housing 14, when the reservoir, pump 21, and
`
`
`1 We agree with Petitioner that it appears that the specification transposes
`the description of Figure 7 with that of Figure 8. Pet. 6 n.1. We refer to the
`description of “Figure 8” in the specification in our discussion of Figure 7,
`and we refer to the specification’s discussion of “Figure 7” in our
`discussion of Figure 8.
`
`
`
`4
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 4 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`heat exchanging surface 4 are situated inside the reservoir. Id. at 15:49–51.
`The reservoir has a tube inlet connection (not shown in Figure 8) through
`which the cooling liquid enters the reservoir. Id. at 15:51–53. From the tube
`inlet connection, the cooling liquid flows through the reservoir passing heat
`exchanging surface 4 and enters the inlet of the pump. Id. at 15:54–56. After
`the cooling liquid flows through the pump, the cooling liquid passes out of
`the outlet of the pump and further out through tube outlet connection 16. Id.
`at 15:56–58. As shown in Figure 7, tube inlet connection and tube outlet
`connection 16 are connected to heat radiator 11 by means of connecting
`tubes 24 and 25. Id. at 16:19–21. Cooling liquid flows into and out of the
`reservoir and the heat radiator through connecting tubes 24 and 25,
`respectively. Id. at 16:21–23. Heat radiator 11 (shown in Figure 7) cools the
`cooling liquid before it passes back into the reservoir. Id. at 16:26–30.
`The reservoir may be provided with channels or segments for
`establishing a certain flow-path for the cooling liquid through the reservoir
`to prevent the cooling liquid passing the reservoir too quickly to take up a
`sufficient amount of heat from the heat exchanging surface. Id. at 16:51–62.
`Figures 17 and 20 show the internal structures of a preferred
`embodiment of the reservoir according to the invention and are reproduced
`below. Id. at 21:48–50.
`
`
`
`5
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 5 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 17 is an exploded perspective view of a preferred embodiment of a
`reservoir and a pump and the heat exchanging surface. Id. at 10:7–9. Figure
`20 is a simplified schematic showing a cross-sectional view of the reservoir
`along plane 20-20 of Figure 17. Id. at 10:16–17. Reservoir housing 14 as
`shown in Figures 17 and 20 is in the form of a double-sided chassis having a
`
`
`
`6
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 6 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`substantially conical, circular configuration with stiffening ribs 36 extending
`axially along the exterior of the reservoir housing and configured to mount
`an electrical motor. Id. at 21:49–57. Reservoir housing 14 has recess 40
`intended for accommodating stator 37 of an electrical motor driving impellor
`33 of the pump, which is attached to shaft 38 of rotor 39 of the electric
`motor. Id. at 21:58–22:1. The specification explains that “a liquid-proof
`division” is made between rotor 39 of the motor, which is submerged in the
`cooling liquid, and the stator 37 of the pump. Id. at 22:1–22:6.
`The enclosed space between impeller 33 and heating exchanging
`interface 4 is divided into two separate chambers by impeller cover 46A and
`intermediate member 47, as shown in Figure 20. The chamber formed by
`impeller 33 and impeller cover 46A is described as “pump chamber 46” and
`has outlet 34. Id. at 22:64–67.
`
`D. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Challenged claims 1 and 10 are independent; claim 1 is reproduced
`below:
`1. A liquid cooling system for cooling a heat-generating
`component of a computer, comprising:
`a reservoir configured to circulate a cooling liquid
`therethrough, the reservoir including:
`a pump chamber housing an impeller and defined at least in
`part by an impeller cover and a double-sided chassis, the
`impeller being positioned on one side of the chassis and
`a stator of the pump is positioned on an opposite side of
`the chassis;
`a thermal exchange chamber disposed between the pump
`chamber and the heat-generating component when the
`system is installed on the heat-generating component;
`
`
`
`7
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 7 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`a heat-exchanging interface forming a boundary wall of the
`thermal exchange chamber, the heat-exchanging
`interface has an outer surface configured to be placed in
`thermal contact with a surface of the heat-generating
`component and an inner surface that defines a plurality
`of channels that direct the flow of a cooling liquid
`within the thermal exchange chamber;
`a heat radiator adapted to pass the cooling liquid
`therethrough, the heat radiator being fluidly coupled to
`the reservoir via fluid conduits, the heat radiator being
`configured to dissipate heat from the cooling liquid;
`wherein the pump chamber further includes:
`an inlet defined by the impeller cover positioned below a
`center of the impeller configured to enable the cooling
`liquid to flow into the center of the pump chamber;
`an outlet defined by the impeller cover positioned
`tangentially to the circumference of the impeller.
`Id. at 28:19–47. Claim 10 is reproduced below:
`10. A liquid cooling system for cooling a heat-generating
`component of a computer, comprising:
`a double-sided chassis adapted to mount a pump configured
`to circulate a cooling liquid, the pump comprising a
`stator and an impeller, the impeller being positioned on
`a first side of the chassis and the stator being positioned
`on the opposite side of the chassis;
`a reservoir configured to circulate a cooling liquid there-
`through, the reservoir comprising:
`a pump chamber and a thermal exchange chamber, wherein
`the pump chamber and the thermal chamber are
`vertically displaced fluid-containing chambers;
`wherein the pump chamber includes an inlet to the pump
`chamber positioned concentric to the impeller and an
`outlet to the pump chamber positioned tangentially to
`the circumference of the impeller;
`
`
`
`8
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 8 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`a first passage fluidly coupling the pump chamber and the
`thermal exchange chamber, wherein the first passage
`directs the cooling liquid in the thermal exchange
`chamber between a first end and a second end of the
`thermal exchanger chamber;
`a heat-exchanging interface forming a boundary wall of the
`thermal exchange chamber, the heat-exchanging
`interface has an outer surface configured to be placed in
`thermal contact with a surface of the heat-generating
`component and an inner surface that defines a plurality
`of channels that direct the flow of the cooling liquid
`within the thermal exchange chamber;
`a heat radiator adapted to pass the cooling liquid
`therethrough, the heat radiator being fluidly coupled to
`the reservoir via fluid conduits, the heat radiator being
`configured to dissipate heat from the cooling liquid.
`Id. at 29:7–30:11. The other challenged claims depend, directly or indirectly,
`from claim 1 or 10.
`
`E. PRIOR ART AND ASSERTED GROUNDS
`Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability:
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
`1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 13
`102
`Duan2
`
`1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 13
`
`5
`
`8
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Duan
`
`Duan, Cheon3
`
`Duan, Shin4
`
`
`2 US Pub. No. 2006/0185830, published Aug. 24, 2006 (Ex. 1005).
`3 US 5,731,954, issued Mar. 24, 1998 (Ex. 1007).
`4 Translation of Japanese Pub. No. 2002-151638, published May 24, 2002
`(Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`9
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 9 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`Pet. 3–4. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1003). See generally Pet. 3–4.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may not be
`instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year
`after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the
`petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” In
`addition, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(5) provides a petition for inter partes review
`may be considered only if “the petitioner provides copies of any of the
`documents required under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) to the patent owner or,
`if applicable, the designated representative of the patent owner.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(5). Our rules expand on this service requirement stating that the
`“petition and supporting evidence must be served on the patent owner at the
`correspondence address of record for the subject patent. The petitioner may
`additionally serve the petition and supporting evidence on the patent owner
`at any other address known to the petitioner as likely to effect service.” 37
`C.F.R. § 42.105(a). Moreover, 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(a)(2) provides that the
`petition will not be accorded a filing date until the petition satisfies the
`requirement of effecting “service of the petition on the correspondence
`address of record as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a).”
`The essential facts are not in dispute. Petitioner was served with the
`complaint on February 7, 2019, and thus, the one-year deadline under
`§ 315(b) was February 7, 2020. See Prelim. Resp. 3–4; Reply 1. Petitioner
`filed the Petition and exhibits on Friday, February 7, 2020, before the one-
`
`
`
`10
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 10 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`year deadline.5 Id. at 4. The Petition and supporting exhibits were deposited
`with a FedEx facility in Palo Alto, CA at 9:57 PM Pacific Time on Friday,
`February 7, 2020. See Prelim. Resp. 4; Reply 1; Ex. 2005 (FedEx receipt
`sent to Patent Owner’s counsel by Petitioner’s IPR counsel). The package
`was not picked up from the shipment location until 4:05 PM Pacific Time on
`February 8, 2020, and arrived at Patent Owner’s counsel’s office on
`Monday, February 10, 2020—the next business day after the Petition was
`filed. Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 5, 6; Ex. 2008); Reply 1.
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner failed to timely serve the
`Petition before the 1-year bar date, so the Petition is not entitled to a
`February 7, 2020 filing date and should be denied as barred by § 315(b).
`Prelim. Resp. 13–20. Patent Owner contends that “very similar facts were
`presented in Plaid Techs. Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc., IPR2016-00275, Paper 15 at
`4–6 (PTAB June 9, 2016).” Id. at 13. Patent Owner also identifies Teva
`Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Monosol RX, LLC, IPR2016-00281, Paper 21 (PTAB
`May 23, 2016), as a similar case, which Patent Owner contends declined to
`excuse late service. Id. at 15.
`Petitioner responds that Patent Owner provides no support for its
`contention that we should apply Eastern Time to find that Petitioner’s
`service in California that occurred before the deadline in the Pacific Time
`Zone untimely. Reply 1. Petitioner argues that its service was “complete
`upon deposit of the petition papers with FedEx on Friday, February 7, 2020,
`local time.” Id. Petitioner submits that we should follow the “mailbox rule”
`
`
`5 Timeliness of filings in AIA proceedings is determined as of receipt in the
`USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, VA. See PTAB Operational FAQs
`(May 29, 2020), FAQ 11, available at https://go.usa.gov/xfzRx.
`11
`
`
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 11 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`and find the papers served upon their submission to the courier’s office. Id.
`at 1–2.
`We determine, on the facts of this case, that the Petition was timely
`served. Patent Owner’s arguments would have read a particular time-zone
`requirement into 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(b). We decline to do that. Patent
`Owner’s cited cases—Plaid and Teva—do not compel a different result.
`Both of those cases involve an untimely filing and service that was untimely
`in the time zone in which it was made. Here, there is no dispute that the
`filings were timely and the service was before the bar date in time zone
`where the service was made. Thus, Plaid and Teva are non-analogous
`situations to this case.
`Considering the parties filings and based on the particular facts of this
`case, we are satisfied that Petitioner’s use of FedEx on a Friday evening
`Pacific Time followed by delivery on a Monday—the next business day—is
`sufficiently akin to Priority Mail Express to satisfy the service requirement
`§ 42.105(b). See Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Best Med. Int’l, Inc., IPR2020-
`00071, Paper 14, at 33–34. Further, to the extent necessary, we waive
`regulatory requirements related to the timing of Petitioner’s service based on
`the particular facts of this case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). In particular, Patent
`Owner has not established any actual prejudice or harm arising from
`Petitioner’s next-business-day service based on a filing on Friday evening
`Pacific Time. Finally, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s implication that
`the timing of service in a particular time zone in the United States is a
`statutory requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a); the plain language of that
`statute does not address service deadlines.
`
`
`
`12
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 12 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill
`
`would have been knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling
`systems for computer systems, would have earned at least a
`bachelor’s degree, such as an B.S. (bachelor of science), or
`equivalent thereof, in electrical or mechanical engineering or a
`closely-related field, and would have possessed at least two or
`three years of experience in liquid cooling systems for
`computer systems, or in similar systems.
`Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–19). Patent Owner does not dispute this
`definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. For
`purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary
`skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the
`specification and in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can
`reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).
`
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For an inter partes review petition filed after November 13, 2018, we
`construe claim terms “using the same claim construction standard that would
`be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Petitioner proposes constructions for
`“reservoir,” “chamber,” “impeller,” “stator,” “an inlet . . . positioned below a
`center of the impeller,” “heat radiator,” “double-sided chassis,” and “a first
`end or a second end of the thermal exchange chamber.” Pet. 14–19. Patent
`Owner disputes those constructions for “stator,” “an inlet . . . positioned
`below a center of the impeller,” “double-sided chassis,” and “a first end or a
`second end of the thermal exchange chamber.” PO Prelim. Resp. 20–30.
`
`
`
`13
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 13 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`Based on our analysis of the issues in dispute at this stage of the
`proceeding, we conclude that none of the claim terms identified by the
`parties requires express construction at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`As discussed below, however, one of Patent Owner’s disputes
`depends on an understanding of the phrase in claim 10 reciting “a first
`passage fluidly coupling the pump chamber and the thermal exchange
`chamber, wherein the first passage directs the cooling liquid in the thermal
`exchange chamber between a first end and a second end of the thermal
`exchange chamber.” We discuss the construction of that language below, in
`context.
`
`D. ANTICIPATION BY DUAN
`1. Claims 10, 11 and 13
`Petitioner maps the language of independent claim 10 to Duan’s
`disclosures. Pet. 66–73. Duan’s system includes a cooling plate module with
`a cooling plate integrally formed with a liquid driving module such that the
`layout of the cooling plate module can be minimized to reduce space.
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 7. Figure 6, reproduced below, is a view of Duan’s “liquid
`cooling cyclic mechanism.” Id. ¶ 17.
`
`
`
`14
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 14 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`
`
`Duan’s Figure 6 shows liquid cooling cyclic mechanism 100 for cooling
`CPU 200. Id. ¶ 22. Liquid cooling cyclic mechanism 100 comprises cooling
`module 10 and water tank module 20, which is connected with cooling plate
`module 10 through ducts. Id. Cooling plate module 10 includes cooling plate
`1, liquid driving module 2, and heat absorbing interface 11. Id. Heat
`absorbing face 11 is in contact with CPU 200 for dissipating heat generated
`by the CPU. Id. ¶ 26. Water tank 20 includes cooling stage 53. Id. ¶ 25.
`Driven by liquid driving module 2 (a pump), liquid heated by CPU 200
`flows to cooling stage 53, where heat dissipates through heat-dissipating fins
`531, and the resulting cool liquid flows back to cooling plate module 10. Id.
`¶ 23–26.
`
`
`
`15
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 15 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s showing regarding the limitation
`requiring “a first passage fluidly coupling the pump chamber and the thermal
`exchange chamber, wherein the first passage directs the cooling liquid in the
`thermal exchange chamber between a first end and a second end of the
`thermal exchange chamber.” PO Resp. 38–41. Petitioner asserts that Duan’s
`outlet 24 constitutes the claimed first passage. Petitioner’s annotated version
`of Duan’s Figure 8 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Pet. 72 (annotating Ex. 1005, Fig. 8). Figure 8 depicts a sectional view of
`Duan’s cooling-plate module; Petitioner’s annotations identify liquid
`outlet 24 and second liquid outlet 31 carrying fluid into and out of,
`respectively, a chamber formed by cap 3 and cooling plate 1. Ex. 1005 ¶ 27,
`Fig. 8; Pet. 72.
`
`
`
`16
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 16 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`According to Patent Owner, Duan’s outlet 24 “is at a first end of the
`alleged thermal exchange chamber” rather than “between the first and
`second ends of the thermal exchange chamber” as claimed and as shown in
`Figure 9 of the ’355 patent. PO Prelim. Resp. 40–41. We do not agree.
`Patent Owner appears to misread the claim language such that “between a
`first end and a second end of the thermal exchange chamber” applies to the
`location of the first fluid passage. See id. The more natural reading instructs
`that the first passage must direct the cooling liquid between two ends of the
`thermal exchange chamber. The structure of the claim language first defines
`that the first passage “fluidly coupl[es] the pump chamber and the thermal
`exchange chamber” and then further restricts the function of the passage
`such that it “directs the cooling liquid . . . between a first end and a second
`end of the thermal exchanger chamber.” Ex. 1001, 29:25–29. Patent
`Owner’s argument regarding Duan’s outlet 24 would require a contorted
`reading of the claim language.6
`Patent Owner’s argument is premised on an understanding that
`Duan’s “outlet 24 is located at the ‘first end,’ and not in between the first
`and second ends.” PO Prelim. Resp. 41. Because the claim language does
`not require the first fluid passage be located between the first and second
`ends of the thermal exchange chamber, Patent Owner’s argument is not
`persuasive.
`
`
`6 We note further that the specification appears to use the verb form of
`“direct” consistently with our understanding, to refer to the direction of a
`fluid flow. See Ex. 1001, 17:64–18:2 (“[T]he flow of air of the air fan may
`also be directed along outer surfaces of the reservoir.”).
`17
`
`
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 17 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s remaining contentions regarding
`claim 10 and determine that they show Petitioner is likely to prevail with
`respect to anticipation of claim 10 by Duan. We reach the same conclusion
`regarding Petitioner’s assertions for claims 11 and 13, which depend from
`claim 10.
`
`2. Claims 1, 2, and 6
`Claim 1 recites “a reservoir . . . including: a pump chamber housing
`an impeller and defined at least in part by an impeller cover and a double-
`sided chassis.” By requiring an “impeller cover,” which is not recited by
`claim 10, claim 1 has meaningfully different scope from claim 10.
`Petitioner contends that Duan discloses an impeller cover as “the
`combination of the lower cover 225 (colored in light green below) and the
`interior wall of the accommodation chamber 21 (colored in lime green
`below)” and discloses a double-sided chassis as “the accommodation
`chamber 21, encompassed by a red rectangle below.” Pet. 33–34. Petitioner
`provides an annotated version of Duan’s Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`18
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 18 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 34. Figure 3 depicts an exploded view of Duan’s “liquid driving
`module 2”, including lower cover 225 and accommodation chamber 21.
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 23.
`Patent Owner disputes that Duan discloses the “impeller cover” and
`“double-sided chassis” required by claim 1. PO Prelim. Resp. 30–38.
`Primarily, Patent Owner disputes that both the claimed “double-sided
`chassis” and a portion of the claimed “impeller cover” can read on Duan’s
`accommodation chamber. Patent Owner reasons that the claim recites two
`separate elements—an “impeller cover” and a “double-sided chassis”—that
`define the claimed “pump chamber housing an impeller.” Id. at 32. Because
`
`
`
`19
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 19 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`the specification consistently describes the impeller cover and double-sided
`chassis as two separate components, Patent Owner reasons that an
`anticipatory reference must disclose the two separately recited components.
`Id. at 32–33.
`We agree with Patent Owner that the claimed impeller cover and
`double-sided chassis refer to separate physical components. Just as the Court
`described in Becton, Dickinson v. Tyco Healthcare Group, 616 F.3d 1249
`(Fed. Cir. 2010), the claim recites two distinct elements and therefore
`implies that those elements are distinct components. 616 F.3d at 1254 (citing
`Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The
`specification describes the impeller cover as a separate physical structure
`from the double-sided chassis. Ex. 1001, 21:48–52, 22:64–23:26, Figs. 17,
`20. The specification never suggests that the functions of the impeller cover
`and double-sided chassis may be shared by a collection of components. See
`Powell v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 664 F.3d 1221, 1232–33 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(“Thus, the specification teaches that the cutting box may also function as a
`‘dust collection structure’ to collect sawdust and wood chips generated
`during the wood cutting process. It does not suggest that the claim terms
`require separate structures.”). To be sure, the specification describes
`embodiments that do not use a double-sided chassis and impeller cover to
`define the pump chamber, as recited in claim 1. See Ex. 1001, 18:15–67,
`Fig. 9, 20:18–27, 21:10–16, Fig. 15. But the existence of those alternative
`embodiments does not necessarily mean that all claims must encompass all
`embodiments. Cf. Ventana Med. Sys. v. Biogenex Labs., 473 F.3d 1173,
`1181 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[E]ach claim does not necessarily cover every
`feature disclosed in the specification.”). The claims of the ’355 patent, by
`
`
`
`20
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 20 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`using the terms “double-sided chassis” and “impeller cover,” are directed to
`the embodiment shown in Figures 17 and 20 and described in the
`corresponding text. See Ex. 1001, 21:48–23:56, Figs. 17, 20.
`As described above, Petitioner identifies “the interior cylindrical wall”
`of the accommodation chamber as part of the claimed impeller cover, and
`identifies “the accommodation chamber” as the claimed double-sided
`chassis. Pet. 30–36. That approach is not consistent with the language of
`claim 1 and the specification, which define the impeller cover and double-
`sided chassis as two physical components. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to anticipation of claim 1 by
`Duan. Challenged claims 2 and 6 depend from claim 1, thus Petitioner has
`also not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to
`anticipation of claims 2 or 6 by Duan.
`
`E. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS
`Petitioner’s assertions regarding obviousness of claims 1, 2, 10, 11,
`and 13 over Duan relate only to the claim term “reservoir.” Pet. 75–76. That
`ground therefore neither remedies the defect discussed above with
`Petitioner’s assertions against claim 1 nor furthers Patent Owner’s
`arguments against claim 10.
`Similarly, Petitioner’s obviousness challenges to claims 5 and 8
`(which depend from claim 1) do not remedy the defect with Petitioner’s
`assertions against claim 1.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim. We
`
`
`
`21
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1007 Page 21 of 24
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2021-01196
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`have evaluated all of the parties’ submissions and determine that the record
`supports institution. We note that although Petitioner’s assertions against
`claims 1, 2, 5, 6, or 8 do not support institution, its assertions against claims
`10, 11, and 13 do support institution. The Board does not apply a fixed
`threshold for determining when to institute in such cases. See SAS Q&A’s,
`Part D, Effect of SAS on Future Challenges that Could Be Denied for
`Statutory Reasons (June 5, 2018), available at https://go.usa.gov/xfvmA. We
`are cognizant that, in some cases, the Board has exercised its discretion not
`to institute when a petitioner’s showing for institution demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to only a small number of
`challenged claims. See Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310,
`Paper 7 (Jan. 24, 2019) (informative); Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum
`USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (Nov. 7, 2018) (informative). This case,
`however, presents a much more balanced analysis at the institution stage.
`Additionally, the challenges that support institu
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
