Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 36
`Entered: August 19, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, and JASON W. MELVIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 1 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`CoolIT Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`
`requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 15, and 19
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,078,354 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’354 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. We
`
`instituted review. Paper 9 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst.”).
`
`Patent Owner filed a Response. Paper 21. Petitioner filed a Reply.
`
`Paper 27 (“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. Paper 30
`
`(“PO Sur-Reply”). We held a hearing on May 24, 2021, and a transcript
`
`appears in the record. Paper 35 (“Tr.”).
`
`This is a final written decision as to the patentability of the challenged
`
`claims. For the reasons discussed below, we determine Petitioner has shown
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence that each of the challenged claims is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`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.) (complaint served on February 7,
`
`2019, currently pending) as a related co-pending district court litigation. Pet.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 2 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`1; Paper 4, 1. The parties also identify the following inter partes reviews
`
`involving patents that are related to the ’354 patent: IPR2020-00522, Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355 B2, filed on February 7, 2020;
`
`and IPR2020-00524, Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,733,681 B2,
`
`filed on February 7, 2020. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1.
`
`C. THE ’354 PATENT
`
`The ’354 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. 15/347,938, which issued as Patent
`
`No. 9,715,260 and claims priority to a PCT application filed November 8,
`
`2004, which issued as Patent No. 7,971,632. Id. at Code (60).
`
`The ’354 patent relates to a liquid-cooling system for a computer
`
`system. Id. at Code (57). 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 and risk of leakage of the cooling liquid from the system.
`
`Id. at 1:46–56. 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, can be produced at low cost enabling high production
`
`volumes, is easy to use 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 1:60–2:3.
`
`An illustrative embodiment of such a system is depicted in Figures 7
`
`and 8, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 3 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 8 is a perspective view of the cooling system showing reservoir
`
`housing 14 with heat exchanging surface 5 (shown in Figure 7) and pump 21
`
`(shown in Figure 8) inside the reservoir. Id. at 13:29–31. Figure 7 is a cut-
`
`out view into reservoir housing 14, when the reservoir, pump 21, and heat
`
`exchanging surface 4 are situated inside the reservoir. Id. at 12:62–64. The
`
`reservoir has tube inlet connection 15 (not shown in Figure 7) through which
`
`the cooling liquid enters the reservoir. Id. at 12:64–66. 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 12:67–13:2.
`
`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 13:2–4. As shown in Figure 8, tube inlet connection 15
`
`and tube outlet connection 16 are connected to heat radiator 11 by means of
`
`connecting tubes 24 and 25. Id. at 13:32–35. Cooling liquid flows into and
`
`
`
`4
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 4 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`out of the reservoir and the heat radiator through connecting tubes 24 and
`
`25, respectively. Id. Heat radiator 11 (shown in Figure 8) cools the cooling
`
`liquid before it passes back into the reservoir. Id. at 13:35–43.
`
`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 from passing the reservoir too quickly to take
`
`up a sufficient amount of heat from the heat exchanging surface. Id. at
`
`13:63–14:12. Figure 9 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 9 depicts an embodiment of reservoir housing 14 in which
`
`channels 261 are provided to direct the flow of cooling liquid from inlet 15
`
`to outlet 16. Id. at 15:25–34.
`
`
`1 Although the text refers to “channels 25,” that designation appears to be in
`error and we understand the structure labeled “26” in Figure 9 to depict the
`described channels. See Ex. 1001, 15:25–34.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 5 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`
`
`
`D. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Challenged claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent, and claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. A cooling system for a computer system processing unit,
`comprising:
`
`a reservoir configured to circulate a cooling liquid
`therethrough, the reservoir including:
`
`an upper chamber and a lower chamber, wherein the
`upper chamber and the lower chamber are vertically
`displaced fluid-containing chambers that are each
`surrounded by boundary walls;
`
`a first passage that fluidly couples the lower chamber to
`the upper chamber, where the first passage is
`substantially central to the lower chamber;
`
`a second passage positioned at a perimeter of the lower
`chamber;
`
`wherein the lower chamber includes a plurality of
`channels configured to split the flow of cooling
`liquid and direct the cooling liquid from the central
`region toward the perimeter of the lower chamber;
`
`a heat exchanging interface attached to the reservoir to form
`a boundary wall of the lower chamber, the heat
`exchanging interface provides thermal contact between
`the processing unit and the cooling liquid;
`
`a pump having a motor and an impeller, the impeller being
`positioned within the upper chamber of the reservoir;
`
`and a radiator spaced apart from and fluidly coupled to the
`reservoir.
`
`Id. at 18:62–19:20. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations.
`
`Id. at 19:41–20:2, 20:23–49. Claims 4, 14, and 19 indirectly depend from
`
`claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 6 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`
`E. PRIOR ART AND ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
`
`1, 8, 15
`
`4, 14, 19
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Batchelder2, Shin3
`
`Batchelder, Shin, Cheon4
`
`Pet. 3. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 1003). See generally Pet. 3.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`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. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–19). Patent Owner does not dispute this
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. 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
`
`
`2 US 6,019,165, issued Feb. 1, 2000 (Ex. 1006).
`3 Translation of Japanese Application Pub. 2002-151638, published May 24,
`2002 (Ex. 1007).
`4 US 5,731,954, issued Mar. 24, 1998 (Ex. 1008).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 7 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art).
`
`B. 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,” and “radiator.” Pet. 7–9. We determined
`
`in the Institution Decision that no term required an express construction.
`
`Inst. 10–11. Patent Owner agrees that no issue before us requires express
`
`construction. PO Resp. 6–7. We maintain our view that no claim term
`
`requires express construction in this Final Written Decision.
`
`C. OBVIOUSNESS OVER BATCHELDER AND SHIN
`
`Petitioner asserts that Batchelder teaches most limitations of claim 1
`
`with an embodiment depicted in Batchelder’s Figure 2, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`8
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 8 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 2. Figure 2 depicts a heat-transfer device where heat from
`
`metal cover 8 of semiconductor chip 4 moves into lower surface 24 of active
`
`spreader plate 20, into metallic fin array 52, then into heat-transfer fluid
`
`sealed in flow channels 50 inside active spreader plate 20. Figure 2 also
`
`depicts a centripetal or centrifugal pump with impeller 54, immersed in heat-
`
`transfer fluid and driven through magnetic coupling to rotor 32, which is
`
`outside active spreader plate 20. Id. at 4:63–26. As indicated by arrows in
`
`Figure 2, the heat-transfer fluid flows outward from impeller 54 to the
`
`perimeter of active spreader plate 20, down to the bottom surface, inward to
`
`the center where metallic fin array 52 is located, and then up a passage back
`
`to impeller 54. Id. at 5:21–32, Fig. 2.
`
`Petitioner relies on Shin for certain aspects of the claims. Shin
`
`discloses a cooling system for computer components, in which a pump is
`
`affixed to a liquid-cooled heat sink and circulates coolant through the heat
`
`
`
`9
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 9 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`sink and then through a “heat exchanger” to release heat to the environment.
`
`Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–25, Fig. 3. Shin’s Figure 3 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 3. Figure 3 depicts an embodiment of Shin’s liquid-cooled heat
`
`sink 4, placed on heat-generating element 1 on wiring board 2, which is
`
`housed inside case 24; fan 34 provides air cooling for multiple air-cooled
`
`components 22a, 22b, 22c; liquid coolant circulates through hose 16 to heat
`
`exchanger 27 in thermal contact with the side of panel 32 so that heat from
`
`
`
`10
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 10 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`the liquid coolant spreads through conduction to side panel 32 and is
`
`released by both natural convection and cooling air 25 provided by fan 34.
`
`Id. ¶ 25.
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 requires both an “upper chamber” and a “lower chamber,”
`
`which Petitioner maps to the flow channels on the top and bottom of
`
`Batchelder’s active spreader plate, respectively. Pet. 16–18 (showing
`
`annotated versions of Batchelder’s Figures 2, 7, and 8). Claim 1 further
`
`requires that “the lower chamber includes a plurality of channels configured
`
`to split the flow of cooling liquid and direct the cooling liquid from the
`
`central region toward the perimeter of the lower chamber.”
`
`Petitioner asserts first that Batchelder’s flow pattern satisfies this
`
`requirement because it flows upward from the central region and through the
`
`upper flow passages before reentering the lower flow passages at the
`
`perimeter of the active spreader plate. Id. at 30 (showing an annotated
`
`version of Batchelder’s Figure 2). We do not find that assertion persuasive
`
`because the claim requires that the “lower chamber” includes channels that
`
`split the flow and direct it “from the central region toward the perimeter of
`
`the lower chamber.” That plain language requires the flow enter the lower
`
`chamber in the central region and proceed to the perimeter of the lower
`
`chamber. Such an understanding is consistent with the embodiment shown in
`
`Figure 9 of the ’354 patent. Ex. 1001, 15:25–34, Figs. 9, 10. Accordingly,
`
`claim 1 does not read on Batchelder’s disclosed flow pattern. See
`
`PO Resp. 18–25.
`
`Petitioner asserts further that it would have been obvious to a skilled
`
`artisan “to reverse the flow direction such that the cooling liquid is directed
`
`
`
`11
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 11 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`from the central region toward the perimeter of the lower chamber entirely
`
`within the lower chamber.” Id. at 30. According to Petitioner, doing so
`
`“could be facilitated by using the pump (e.g., displacement pump 280)
`
`disclosed in FIG. 9 (upper-right) of Batchelder.” Id. at 30–31 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Ex. 1006, 8:14–36). Petitioner asserts that it would have been
`
`obvious to try the claimed flow pattern because the flow could only move in
`
`two directions (center-to-periphery or periphery-to-center). Id. at 33. Finally,
`
`Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans had reason to change the flow pattern
`
`because they would have known “that heat can negatively impact the life of
`
`a pump” and the modification would “allow warm fluid to flow away from
`
`the pump rather than toward the pump.” Id. at 34.
`
`As to the difficulty of modifying Batchelder, Petitioner asserts that
`
`skilled artisans would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 33
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80). In particular, Petitioner asserts that “cooling a heat
`
`generating component using liquid to absorb the heat is a well-documented
`
`technique,” such that skilled artisans would have configured the flow “to
`
`maximize heat absorption” and “control the way liquid absorbs heat as it
`
`moves across a surface.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner disputes both whether skilled artisans would have had
`
`reason to make the asserted combination and also whether they would have
`
`had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. PO Resp. 26–29.
`
`According to Patent Owner, the claimed flow direction is “critical for
`
`optimal heat removal” rather than being a simple matter of choice. Id. at 26–
`
`27. For support, however, Patent Owner relies on its declarant’s statements.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 52). The specification does not disclose a particular
`
`benefit to the claimed flow direction. See Tr. 23:5–11, 25:5–7, 27:3–11. But
`
`
`
`12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 12 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`the specification discloses other approaches, such as the side-to-side flow
`
`depicted in Figure 15. Tr. 27:3–7. Indeed, rather than identifying center-to-
`
`periphery flow as beneficial, the specification gives flexible guidance for
`
`arranging flow channels. Ex. 1001, 15:63–67 (“The configuration of the
`
`channels may be designed and selected according to any one or more
`
`provisions, i.e. high heat dissipation, certain flow characteristics, ease of
`
`manufacturing etc.”).
`
`Moreover, the record reflects that skilled artisans would have had
`
`reason to configure the flow as claimed, without the claim language for
`
`guidance. According to each party’s declarant, configuring the flow to move
`
`from center to periphery provided certain benefits. Ex. 1003 ¶ 81 (reasoning
`
`that pumping hot liquid away from the pump would increase pump service
`
`life); Ex. 2018 ¶ 52 (reasoning that providing cooler liquid to the hottest
`
`central region first would improve heat-removal efficiency). In particular,
`
`we credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant that reversing Batchelder’s
`
`flow to pump heated liquid away from the pump would have benefited pump
`
`life by reducing its temperature. Ex. 1003 ¶ 81.
`
`Patent Owner argues that because the pump disclosed in Batchelder’s
`
`Figure 2 moves fluid radially outwards from the impeller, Petitioner’s
`
`proposed modification would change “the entire pumping configuration”
`
`because it would require liquid to flow towards the center of the impeller.
`
`PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:26–32; Ex. 2018 ¶ 54). Patent Owner does
`
`not adequately address that Batchelder also discloses “several examples of
`
`fluid impellers that can effectively be used in an active spreader plate,” an
`
`element described in connection with the Figure 2 embodiment. Ex. 1006,
`
`4:63–67, 8:14–67. The Petition specifically identified “displacement pump
`
`
`
`13
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 13 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`280” as the proposed mechanism for reversing flow. Pet. 30–31 (citing
`
`Ex. 1006, 8:14–36).
`
`Indeed, Batchelder’s displacement pump 280 exposes the problem
`
`with Patent Owner’s argument. Although Patent Owner argues that pumping
`
`fluid from the periphery to the center of a pump is inefficient and
`
`undesirable, Batchelder’s displacement pump 280 does not use that flow
`
`path. An excerpt of Batchelder’s Figure 9 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1006, Fig. 9. The excerpt depicts displacement pump 280, in which heat
`
`transfer fluid feeds the pump through channel 282 leading to circular cavity
`
`286, in which eccentric disc-shaped rotor 288 rotates due to external
`
`magnetic fields, and movable plunger 294 presses against the rotor such that
`
`the rotor moves fluid out channel 282. Id. at 8:27–36.
`
`As shown, the fluid in Batchelder’s displacement pump does not have
`
`a net change in radial position from the pump’s entrance to its exit. Id. at
`
`Fig. 9. Thus, Patent Owner’s reliance on Batchelder’s disclosure of pumping
`
`liquid “radially outward” from impeller 54 (PO Resp. 28; PO Sur-Reply 16–
`
`17; Ex. 2018 ¶ 54) does not adequately consider the alternative flow path of
`
`
`
`14
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 14 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`Batchelder’s displacement pump 280. While Patent Owner argues that the
`
`proposed change would affect Batchelder’s “entire pumping configuration,”
`
`we find the exercise would not have dissuaded skilled artisans from the
`
`change. Batchelder specifically instructs that the exemplary pumps shown in
`
`Figure 9 “can effectively be used in an active spreader plate” and that each is
`
`“motivated by moving external magnetic fields,” as in the primary
`
`embodiment. Ex. 1006, 8:14–16. Changes to the overall configuration would
`
`of course have been required to accommodate the fluid entrance and exit
`
`locations on displacement pump 280, but nothing about those changes
`
`appears to stretch the abilities of skilled artisans at the time. See Ex. 1012
`
`¶ 11–14
`
`To be clear, we agree with Petitioner that skilled artisans would have
`
`had reason to modify Batchelder’s primary embodiment to reverse its flow
`
`for a potential benefit to pump life, and that Batchelder’s disclosure of
`
`displacement pump 280 taught a method of facilitating such a reverse flow
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`In the Sur-Reply, Patent Owner raises additional arguments against
`
`the asserted modification. In particular, Patent Owner argues that any
`
`improvement to pump life is speculative, as shown by its own declarant’s
`
`statements. PO Sur-Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1011, 72:15–73:25, 76:21–78:12).
`
`Similarly, Patent Owner argues that any benefit to the impeller’s magnetic
`
`coupling by operating at a lower temperature would not overcome
`
`disadvantages to modifying Batchelder. Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1011,
`
`90:24–94:6). While the Response challenged the modification by arguing
`
`that Petitioner provided inadequate reason to modify Batchelder’s flow
`
`direction (PO Resp. 26–29), it did not raise these additional arguments that
`
`
`
`15
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 15 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`challenged Petitioner’s reasoning. Patent Owner’s assertion that it
`
`“specifically disputed Petitioner’s motivation to reverse the flow direction in
`
`Batchelder” (PO Sur-Reply 11 n.1) does not persuade us otherwise because
`
`the Response arguments were limited to the points discussed above.5 Patent
`
`Owner was fully aware of Petitioner’s pump-life justification for the asserted
`
`modification but did not address it in the Response. Accordingly, we
`
`determine that Patent Owner has waived the arguments. See Paper 10, 8
`
`(“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response
`
`may be deemed waived.”); In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1380–81
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the patent owner waived an issue presented
`
`in its preliminary response that it failed to renew in its response during trial);
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 52 (Nov. 2019) (“Once a trial is instituted,
`
`the Board may decline to consider arguments set forth in a preliminary
`
`response unless they are raised in the patent owner response.”). Similarly,
`
`the Petition did not rely on Batchelder’s alternative pumps beyond
`
`displacement pump 280. See Pet. 30–31. Therefore, we give no weight to
`
`Petitioner’s assertions in the Reply regarding Batchelder’s viscosity
`
`pump 260. Pet. Reply 11–15.
`
`For the claimed “radiator spaced apart from and fluidly coupled to the
`
`reservoir,” Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious for a skilled
`
`
`5 Patent Owner argues that by asserting the flow direction was a “design
`choice,” Petitioner relies on a legal theory inapplicable where the selected
`design has a functional benefit. Sur-Reply 8–9. Because we do not
`understand Petitioner to rely on “design choice” as that phrase is used in
`the case law (where a change is made without a functional impact), Patent
`Owner’s argument is inapposite. As noted in our discussion, Petitioner
`provides evidence that skilled artisans would have understood a
`performance benefit to modifying Batchelder’s flow direction.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 16 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`artisan to modify Batchelder’s system to include Shin’s heat exchanger 27,
`
`28, and 29. Pet. 40–46 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 25, Fig. 3). Petitioner submits that
`
`modifying Batchelder’s device to include Shin’s radiator would have been
`
`obvious because “[a] radiator is [a] well known component used to transfer
`
`thermal energy (e.g., heat) from one medium to another medium.” Pet. 43
`
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). According to Petitioner, a skilled artisan had reason
`
`to make the change to Batchelder “to further increase heat management
`
`efficiency by using an outside or external radiator.” Id. at 44.
`
`Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s reasoning and argues that
`
`Petitioner fails to support why a skilled artisan would have modified
`
`Batchelder to use Shin’s external radiator. PO Resp. 37–41. Patent Owner
`
`notes that Batchelder already includes a “heat absorbing device 28” to
`
`dissipate heat to the environment and criticizes Petitioner for proposing to
`
`add an external radiator without support in Batchelder that doing so would
`
`“increase heat management efficiency.” Id. at 37–38 (quoting Ex. 1003
`
`¶ 99). Patent Owner contends that adding an external radiator “would be a
`
`superfluous addition to Batchelder because heat from the cooling liquid is
`
`already sufficiently removed by heat absorbing device 28.” Id. at 39.
`
`Petitioner points out that, although Batchelder includes one
`
`mechanism for transferring heat to the environment, it also recognizes that
`
`industry trends showed an ongoing need to improve heat dissipation. Pet.
`
`Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:34–38). Thus, reasons Petitioner, enhancing
`
`Batchelder’s capacity with Shin’s external radiator would have offered a
`
`benefit. Id. We agree with Petitioner that Batchelder’s recognition of ever-
`
`increasing thermal demands supports that adding a remote radiator would
`
`have provided a potential benefit to Batchelder’s design because it “would
`
`
`
`17
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 17 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`allow heat to escape the system.” Pet. 44. In that regard, Shin’s radiator was
`
`a known element for releasing heat from a fluid system. Id. at 40–43. Thus,
`
`we conclude that Petitioner’s “proposed modification amounts to nothing
`
`more than reorganizing familiar elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results.” Grit Energy Sol’ns, LLC v. Oren Techs., 957 F.3d
`
`1309, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 416 (2007)).
`
`Relatedly, Patent Owner argues that Batchelder teaches away from
`
`using an external radiator, because doing so would require a second motor
`
`for the radiator’s fan. PO Resp. 40–41. Batchelder recognizes the “cost
`
`disadvantage of requiring separate motors to impel the heat transfer fluid and
`
`to impel the atmosphere.” Ex. 1006 1:67–2:1. Similarly, it recognizes
`
`“reliability exposure associated with hoses and fittings.” Id. at 2:4–5.
`
`Notably, however, Batchelder does not indicate that using a separate radiator
`
`(and associated fan motor) would not function to meet cooling needs. We
`
`find that Batchelder expresses a preference for the simpler design without a
`
`radiator but does not teach away from using one. Additionally, Petitioner
`
`point out that skilled artisans would have understood that an external
`
`radiator could often use an existing computer-case fan, therefore not
`
`requiring an additional fan motor. Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 26). Indeed,
`
`Shin’s radiator (heat exchanger 27) is installed on a side panel of the
`
`computer case that contains fan 34 and the radiator does not use a separate
`
`fan. Ex. 1007 ¶ 25, Fig. 3.
`
`Patent Owner argues that adding a remote radiator to Batchelder
`
`would contradict its objective of an integrated system without hoses or fluid
`
`couplings and would therefore “render Batchelder inoperable for its intended
`
`
`
`18
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 18 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`purpose of providing an integrated, low-cost, and reliable heat exchange
`
`system.” PO Resp. 40. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s
`
`characterization of Batchelder’s intended purpose. Batchelder expresses a
`
`number of objectives, including some that would not be impacted by adding
`
`an external radiator—a design compatible with passive spreader heat sinks
`
`and a design without moving or rotary mechanical seals. See Ex. 1006, 2:40–
`
`57.
`
`We find that skilled artisans would have understood that modifying
`
`Batchelder’s design to use an external radiator would have introduced
`
`certain deficiencies (assembly cost and reliability exposure (Ex. 1006 2:4–
`
`5)) but would also have brought the benefit of additional cooling capacity
`
`(Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). That tradeoff does not exclude Shin’s radiator from use
`
`with Batchelder’s design. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d
`
`1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes
`
`at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a
`
`basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.
`
`Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one
`
`another.”). When we weigh the competing factors, as expressed in the
`
`record, we conclude that skilled artisans would have had adequate reason to
`
`modify Batchelder as Petitioner asserts.
`
`Other than as discussed, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s
`
`assertions against claim 1. Thus, any such challenge is waived. See Paper 10,
`
`8 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response
`
`may be deemed waived.”); In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1380–81
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 52 (Nov. 2019). We
`
`have reviewed the record, including both parties’ contentions and evidence,
`
`
`
`19
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 19 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`and conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that the combination of Batchelder and Shin discloses the limitations of
`
`claim 1, and that skilled artisans would have had reason to make the
`
`combination as asserted, with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`2. Claim 8
`
`For independent claim 8, which recites limitations similar to claim 1,
`
`Petitioner relies on the same assertions as for claim 1. Pet. 47–49. Petitioner
`
`asserts that claim 8 is broader than claim 1 in one regard—claim 8 does not
`
`include claim 1’s “plurality of channels configured to split the flow of
`
`cooling liquid and direct the cooling liquid from the central region toward
`
`the perimeter of the lower chamber.” Id. at 48; compare Ex. 1001, 18:62–
`
`19:20, with id. at 19:41–20:2. Like claim 1, claim 8 recites that the passage
`
`coupling the upper chamber to the lower chamber “is substantially central to
`
`the lower chamber” and that the lower chamber includes “a plurality of
`
`channels configured to direct the flow of cooling liquid across the lower
`
`chamber.” Ex. 1001, 19:49–51, 19:54–56. Thus, claim 8 does not require the
`
`same flow direction as claim 1.
`
`In light of not restricting flow direction, claim 8’s language reads on
`
`Batchelder’s disclosures even without modifying Batchelder to reverse its
`
`flow. Ex. 1006, Figs. 2, 6, 7, 8, 4:63–5:6, 7:4–22, 7:30–36; see Pet. 48.
`
`Patent Owner does not contest that point. See PO Resp. 16–37 (challenging
`
`disclosure or obviousness of the claimed flow direction for only claims 1
`
`and 15). In other regards, the parties treat claim 8 the same as claim 1, and
`
`we reach the same conclusions for the reasons discussed above.
`
`
`
`20
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1011, Page 20 of 32
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00523
`Patent 10,078,354 B2
`
`
`3. Claim 15
`
`Independent claim