`
`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.
`
`95/002,386
`
`09/15/2012
`
`8245764
`
`COOL-1.012
`
`7254
`
`04/29/2016
`7590
`22852
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
`LLP
`901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
`
`EXAMINER
`
`KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3993
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/29/2016
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CoolIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Third Party Requester, Respondent,
`
`V.
`
`ASETEKA/S,
`Patent Owner, Appellant.
`
`Appeal2015-007934
`Reexamination Control 95/002,386
`Patent US 8,245,764 B2 1
`Technology Center 3900
`
`Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, BRETT C. MARTIN,
`JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`1 Issued to Andre Sloth Eriksen on August 21, 2012 (hereinafter the '764
`patent).
`
`
`
`Appeal2015-007934
`Reexamination Control 95/002,386
`Patent US 8,245,764 B2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) from a rejection of claims
`
`1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a). Oral
`
`arguments were heard in this matter on April 13, 2016.
`
`We are informed that the '764 patent is currently involved in the
`
`following litigations: 1) Asetek Holdings, Inc. v. CoolIT Systems, Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 3:12-CV-04498-EMC, and 2) Asetek Holdings, Inc. v. CMI
`
`USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-00457-JST. Both the litigations are
`
`pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
`
`We REVERSE.
`
`CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
`The claims are directed to "a cooling system for a central processing
`
`unit (CPU) or other processing unit of a computer system." Spec. col. 1, 11.
`
`11-13. Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
`
`is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`
`A coo ling system for a heat-generating component,
`1.
`compnsmg:
`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 the
`underside of the chassis and the stator being positioned on the
`upper side of the chassis and isolated from the cooling liquid;
`a reservoir adapted to pass the cooling liquid therethrough,
`the reservoir including:
`a pump chamber including the impeller and formed
`below the chassis, the pump chamber being defined by at
`least an impeller cover having one or more passages for
`the cooling liquid to pass through;
`
`2
`
`
`
`Appeal2015-007934
`Reexamination Control 95/002,386
`Patent US 8,245,764 B2
`
`a thermal exchange chamber formed below the
`pump chamber and vertically spaced apart from the pump
`chamber, the pump chamber and the thermal exchange
`chamber being separate chambers that are fluidly coupled
`together by the one or more passages; and
`a heat-exchanging interface, the heat-exchanging
`interface forming a boundary wall of the thermal exchange
`chamber, and configured to be placed in thermal contact
`with a surface of the heat-generating component; and
`a heat radiator fluidly coupled to the reservoir and
`configured to dissipate heat from the cooling liquid.
`
`REFERENCES
`
`The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
`
`appeal is:
`
`Koga
`
`us 7,544,049
`
`Jun.9,2009
`
`REJECTIONS
`
`Claims 1-19, 21-23, 25-27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
`
`§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Koga. RAN 3--4.
`
`Claims 20, 24, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Koga. RAN 5.
`
`ISSUE
`
`The issues in this appeal can be narrowed to one dispositive issue,
`
`namely whether or not Koga teaches a "thermal exchange chamber" as
`
`claimed. All of the claims rejected over Koga require such a thermal
`
`exchange chamber and thus resolution of this issue will affect all pending
`
`rejections.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Appeal2015-007934
`Reexamination Control 95/002,386
`Patent US 8,245,764 B2
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT
`
`Koga describes a centrifugal pump 1 for cooling an electronic
`
`component such as an integrated circuit chip configured as a central
`
`processing unit 2. Col. 4, 11. 3-7. Centrifugal pump 1 is enclosed in a pump
`
`casing 15 that rests on a top surface of chip 2. Pump casing 15 defines a
`
`pump room 15A enclosing an impeller 11. When energized, a ring magnet
`
`13 and a stator 14 induce impeller 11 to rotate in a horizontal plane about a
`
`vertical axis. When rotating, impeller 11 draws liquid coolant 41 into pump
`
`room 15A through a sucking channel 19 and discharges the coolant from the
`
`pump room through a tangential discharging channel 20. Col. 4, 11. 27-37,
`
`51-58 and 61-67; col. 7, 11. 39--42; col. 8, 11. 4-11; see also Figs. 3 and 5.
`
`Referring to Figures 3 and 5, Koga describes the lower surface of
`
`pump room 15A as follows:
`
`On radially outer wall surface 15C of the pump room 15A, a
`large number of dimples 21 are formed. A recess (recessed area)
`15E defines a radially inner wall surface on a bottom of the pump
`room 15 A that faces toward impeller 11, and has a large number
`of protrusions 24 projected from the radially outer wall surface
`and toward impeller 11. Recess 15E, slope 27, and radially outer
`wall 15C together define an inner wall face 50 of casing 15. Col.
`4, 11. 43-51.
`
`The portion of Koga's pump casing 15 contacting the top surface of
`
`chip 2 defines a heat-receiving plane 15B. Heat-receiving plane 15B
`
`collects heat evolved by chip 2. Col. 4, 11. 38--43. Koga states that
`
`"[ s ]ucking channel 19 is disposed between heat-receiving plane 15B and
`
`inner wall face 50." Col. 4, 11. 58-60; see also Fig. 3. Koga teaches that
`
`"the heat generated from component 2 travels to casing 15 and is transferred
`
`to protrusions 24 projected from recess 15E [ on the inner wall face 50
`
`4
`
`
`
`Appeal2015-007934
`Reexamination Control 95/002,386
`Patent US 8,245,764 B2
`
`defining the lower boundary of the pump room 15A ], so that the coolant 41
`
`collects the heat when [the coolant] hits against protrusions 24." Col. 8, 11.
`
`11-15. In other words, "the heat generated from component 2, i.e. the heat
`
`stored in protrusions 24 and casing 15, is collected by coolant 41, and
`
`discharged through discharging channel 20 together with coolant 41 by
`
`spinning blades 12 [of impeller 11]." Col. 8, 11. 32-36.
`
`Koga also teaches that:
`
`The shape of heat-receiving plane 15B and the shape of an upper
`surface of component 2 complement each other
`three(cid:173)
`dimensionally, so that sucking channel 19 does not extend over
`component 2. This structure allows heat-receiving plane 15B
`and the upper surface of component 2 to solidly contact with each
`other, so that heat can be transferred efficiently. Col. 8, 11. 47-
`53.
`
`Koga does not appear to describe any significant heat exchange between
`
`chip 2 and coolant 41 flowing through the sucking channel 19. See Tilton
`Dec. ,r 12.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`According to the Examiner, Koga teaches the recited "thermal
`
`exchange chamber" receiving coolant via "sucking channel" 19. RAN 6.
`
`The Patent Owner argues that, "even if sucking channel 19 is considered a
`
`'chamber,' [the sucking channel] still cannot be equated to a 'thermal
`
`exchange chamber' because Koga does not disclose or suggest that sucking
`
`chamber 19 is configured or intended to perform any heat transfer function."
`
`App. Br. 10 (italics suppressed).
`
`The parties' main disagreement lies with whether and to what extent
`
`thermal exchange must occur in channel 19 in order to qualify as the claimed
`
`5
`
`
`
`Appeal2015-007934
`Reexamination Control 95/002,386
`Patent US 8,245,764 B2
`
`"thermal exchange chamber." The Requester argues that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation would allow for channel 19 to meet this limitation
`
`because it allegedly "is clearly configured to perform thermal exchange" due
`
`to the fact that the walls surrounding the chamber are made of a "highly
`
`conductive casing." Resp. Br. 5. We do not disagree that some thermal
`
`exchange may occur in channel 19, but we disagree with the Requester's
`
`characterization that the channel is configured to perform thermal exchange.
`
`As the Patent Owner points out, "the USPTO, in applying the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of claim elements, is bounded by what would be
`
`reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art." App. Br.
`
`12 (citing In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1365, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Both
`
`parties appear to agree that, in order to be reasonably considered a thermal
`
`exchange chamber, channel 19 must be configured to perform thermal
`
`exchange. See Resp. Br. 5, App. Br. 12. We agree with the Patent Owner
`
`that the mere fact of thermal exchange occurring does not cause any
`
`chamber or channel where some small amount of thermal exchange occurs
`
`to be considered configured to perform thermal exchange. App. Br. 12.
`
`Koga teaches a combined pump and heat exchange chamber 15.
`
`Chamber 15 is clearly designed to be a heat exchange chamber having
`
`specific features, namely protrusions 24, to enhance the heat exchange from
`
`component 2 to chamber 15. Channel 19, however, is merely a conduit to
`
`supply cooling liquid to chamber 15 and is not specifically described as
`
`being intended to perform any cooling function. As stated above, we do not
`
`deny that some heat exchange may occur in channel 19, but it is clear from
`
`6
`
`
`
`Appeal2015-007934
`Reexamination Control 95/002,386
`Patent US 8,245,764 B2
`
`Koga that the purpose of channel 19 is to direct fluid into chamber 15 where
`
`the heat exchange is specifically designed to occur.
`
`Further, the Patent Owner has provided unrebutted evidence in its
`
`favor in the form of a Declaration of Donald Tilton stating that "the sucking
`
`channel cannot be reasonably said to function as a heat exchanging
`chamber." Tilton Dec. ,r 12. Additionally, we note that the Examiner does
`not address the issue of thermal exchange in the Remarks portion of the
`
`RAN and merely explains that channel 19 is a chamber without explaining
`
`how channel 19 is configured so as to perform thermal exchange. See, e.g.,
`
`RAN 6-7. We conclude that the mere fact of thermal exchange does not
`
`make a chamber a heat exchange chamber and that the evidence in this case
`
`supports the conclusion that in order for one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`reasonably conclude that a chamber is a "thermal exchange chamber," the
`
`chamber must be configured to perform heat exchange, such as in Koga's
`
`chamber 15. Because all of the claim rejections rely on the Examiner's
`
`faulty interpretation and application of "thermal exchange chamber," we do
`
`not sustain any of the rejections of claims 1-30 over Koga.
`
`The Patent Owner further raises the issue of the priority date of the
`
`present application. This issue is moot in light of our finding that Koga does
`
`not anticipate claims 1-19, 21-23, 25-27, 29, and 30; and, as such, does not
`
`include adequate teachings to serve as a primary reference in rejecting
`
`claims 20, 24, and 28. For this reason, we do not reach the issue of priority
`
`in this appeal.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Appeal2015-007934
`Reexamination Control 95/002,386
`Patent US 8,245,764 B2
`
`DECISION
`
`The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-30 are reversed. More
`
`specifically, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19, 21-
`
`23, 25-27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Koga; and the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 20, 24, and 28 under 35
`
`U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koga.
`
`No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
`
`this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv). In the event
`
`neither party files a request for rehearing within the time provided in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and appealable under
`
`3 7 C.F .R. § 41. 81, a party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice
`
`on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.
`
`REVERSED
`
`Ssc
`
`8
`
`