Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 40
`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.
`
`IPR2020-00522
`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.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 1 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`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. We instituted review. Paper 9 (“Institution Decision” or “Inst.”).
`
`Patent Owner filed a Response. Paper 23 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner
`
`filed a Reply. Paper 28 (“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply.
`
`Paper 34 (“PO Sur-Reply”).1 We held a hearing on May 24, 2021, and a
`
`transcript appears in the record. Paper 39 (“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).
`
`
`1 Patent Owner filed a Motion to Amend (Paper 22), which Petitioner
`opposed (Paper 30). After we provided the requested Preliminary Guidance
`(Paper 32), Patent Owner withdrew the Motion (Paper 33).
`
`
`
`2
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 2 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`1; Paper 4, 1. The parties also identify the following inter partes reviews
`
`involving patents that are related to the ’355 patent: IPR2020-00523, Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,078,354 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 ’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 that, 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,
`
`
`
`3
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 3 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`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 1:53–63.
`
`An illustrative embodiment of such a system is depicted in Figures 7
`
`and 8, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 72 is a perspective view of the cooling system showing reservoir
`
`housing 14 with heat exchanging surface 5 (shown in Figure 8) and pump 21
`
`
`2 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
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 4 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`(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 heat
`
`exchanging surface 4 are situated inside the reservoir. Id. at 15:49–51. The
`
`reservoir has tube inlet connection 15 (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 15 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 from 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
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 5 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 17 is an exploded perspective view of a preferred embodiment of a
`
`reservoir, a pump a 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
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 6 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`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 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 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
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 7 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`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
`therethrough, 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
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 8 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`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 grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
`
`1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 13
`
`102
`
`1, 2, 10, 11, 134
`
`5
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Duan3
`
`Duan
`
`Duan, Cheon5
`
`
`3 US Pub. No. 2006/0185830, published Aug. 24, 2006 (Ex. 1005).
`4 Although the Petition includes claim 6 in a table of the asserted grounds
`(Pet. 3), it does not include assertions against claim 6 based on
`obviousness over Duan (Pet. 75–76). Our Institution Decision
`inadvertently included the listing from the Petition’s summary table.
`Inst. 9.
`5 US 5,731,954, issued Mar. 24, 1998 (Ex. 1007).
`
`
`
`9
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 9 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
`
`8
`
`103
`
`Duan, Shin6
`
`Pet. 3–4. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 1003). See generally Pet. 3–4.
`
`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. 4–5 (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 (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
`
`
`6 Translation of Japanese Pub. No. 2002-151638, published May 24, 2002
`(Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`10
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 10 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`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 contends that no construction is required to resolve the disputed
`
`issues. PO Resp. 8.
`
`Patent Owner’s stated position on claim construction notwithstanding,
`
`the parties dispute the construction of “double-sided chassis,” as to its
`
`relationship with the “impeller cover.” See PO Resp. 17–25; Reply 4–7; PO
`
`Sur-Reply 2–12. An initial point of clarification helps define the dispute.
`
`The parties agree that the dispute does not relate to whether the double-sided
`
`chassis and impeller cover are manufactured as or assembled from separate
`
`pieces. Tr. 10:7–16, 18:17–19:2. Accordingly, our determination in the
`
`Institution Decision that the terms refer to separate physical components
`
`(Inst. 20) did not correctly address the dispute. Moreover, that decision was
`
`preliminary (id. at 22), without Petitioner’s response to Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments,7 and we now revisit it. The parties dispute whether the two claim
`
`terms at issue may identify overlapping portions of a structure in the prior
`
`art.
`
`The Federal Circuit has addressed related issues a number of times.
`
`Given the nature of the dispute, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Retractable
`
`Technologies, Inc. v Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) does not direct our decision here. See Reply 5. In that case, the court
`
`
`7 Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply (Paper 8) addressed only the Petition’s
`timeliness, as directed by our order (Paper 7).
`
`
`
`11
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 11 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`considered whether the claims required “separately molded pieces” or could
`
`instead map to “distinct portions of a single structure.” Id. at 1303–04; see
`
`PO Sur-Reply 4–6. Here, as noted, we are not concerned with how the claim
`
`elements are embodied with physical components; rather, the dispute relates
`
`to whether the two terms may identify portions of a structure with some
`
`overlap.
`
`The court has addressed whether two claim terms must map to
`
`nonoverlapping portions of a device or method. In Linear Technology Corp.
`
`v. International Trade Commission, 566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the
`
`court held that claim language defining a “second circuit” and a “third
`
`circuit” with functional characteristics did not prohibit overlap in the
`
`circuits’ components. Id. at 1055.8 As support, the court noted that the
`
`specification described the two circuits as sharing some common
`
`components, thus expressly reinforcing the claim language to permit
`
`overlap. Id. The court reasoned that the broad, functional claim language and
`
`express disclosure both counseled in favor of construing the terms according
`
`to their full scope. Id. (citing Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381
`
`F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent a clear disavowal or contrary
`
`definition in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is
`
`entitled to the full scope of its claim language.”)). In Linear Technology,
`
`
`8 Patent Owner states that Linear Technology analyzed the claim terms at
`issue under a § 112 ¶ 6 analysis (PO Sur-Reply 6), but that characterization
`appears incorrect, as the court’s only mention of such analysis is to a
`related case (which itself did not conclude that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6
`applied). See Linear Tech., 566 F.3d at 1055; Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala
`Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding the terms
`should not be construed under § 112 ¶ 6).
`
`
`
`12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 12 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`however, the court noted that the patentee did not dispute that the two
`
`claimed circuits “can contain overlapping components.” Id. at 1055–56.
`
`Thus, the decision does not resolve the proper test for that question.
`
`The court touched on the issue in Los Angeles Biomedical Research
`
`Institute v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where it held
`
`that claim terms requiring a “continuous long-term regimen” and drug
`
`administration “at a dosage up to 1.5 mg/kg/day for not less than 45 days”
`
`did not create a problem, notwithstanding that “the two limitations clearly
`
`overlap.” Id. at 1062–64. The dispute in the case related to whether
`
`“continuous long-term regimen” required a constant/steady-state plasma
`
`concentration, and thus the court did not directly address when claim terms
`
`may read on overlapping portions of a method (or structure). See id. Stated
`
`otherwise, the claim language at issue expressly overlapped to some degree,
`
`and the court resolved the extent to which the language imposed distinct
`
`requirements.
`
`Other cases, however, more directly address the issue, and highlight
`
`the significance of both the claim language and the specification. In Powell
`
`v. Home Depot USA Inc., 663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the court
`
`considered whether the claimed “cutting box interior in fluid communication
`
`with dust collection structure for collecting sawdust” required a “cutting
`
`box” separate from a “dust collection structure.” Id. at 1231. The
`
`specification described that the cutting box also functioned to contain
`
`sawdust, thus supporting that the two claim terms could be embodied in a
`
`single structure. Id. at 1331–32. Similarly, the court reasoned that the
`
`language “in fluid communication” did not require two separate structures.
`
`Id. at 1332.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 13 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`In Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court
`
`considered claim language requiring “an electrical operating unit and a pair
`
`of spaced-apart electrically exposed conductive probe networks.” Id. at
`
`1288. It addressed whether the pair of probe networks could “consist[] in
`
`part of a portion of the ‘electrical operating unit.’” Id. The court also
`
`expressed the claim-construction question as whether “the probe network
`
`must contain two conductive elements that are separate or independent from
`
`the voltage-carrying portions of the hairdryer.” 363 F.3d at 1288. Thus, it
`
`focused on physical distinctness required in the terms’ functional
`
`components—the probes networks’ conductive elements and the operating
`
`unit’s voltage-carrying portions. The court reasoned that “the clear
`
`implication of the claim language is that the pair of probe networks is a
`
`distinct component, separate from the electrical operating unit of the claimed
`
`invention.” Id. It went on to reason that the specification confirmed that
`
`interpretation by describing the functional benefit to separating the probe
`
`networks from the operating unit. Id. at 1288–90.
`
`In Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, 616 F.3d 1249
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit determined that claim limitations
`
`requiring a “spring means” and a “hinged arm” could not be “the same
`
`structure.” Id. at 1254 (citing CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler
`
`GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any
`
`evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms
`
`in the claims connotes different meanings.”)). The court reasoned that
`
`reciting two claim elements implies two structures. It did not address
`
`whether the “two structures” implied by two claim terms could permit some
`
`overlap, or had to be entirely distinct, as it only resolved whether the two
`
`
`
`14
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 14 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`could be “the same structure.” Id. The specification at issue disclosed the
`
`spring means as a structure separate from the hinged arm or its hinges, and
`
`discouraged any design that stored energy in plastic parts (as would be
`
`required for a spring integrated with the hinged arm). Id. at 1254–55. Thus,
`
`the court concluded that the proper claim construction did not encompass the
`
`accused products in that case, which did not have a spring other than a
`
`“living hinge.” Id. at 1251, 1253.
`
`Here, claim 1 recites “a pump chamber housing an impeller and
`
`defined at least in part by an impeller cover and a double-sided chassis.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 28:23–24. That definition of the impeller cover and double-sided
`
`chassis does not establish a clear relationship between them. Rather, they
`
`together define (at least in part) the pump chamber.
`
`The claim also recites functions allocated to the individual elements.
`
`The double-sided chassis separates the pump’s impeller and stator. Id. at
`
`28:25–27 (“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”). The
`
`impeller cover must define an inlet and outlet for the pump chamber (each
`
`with certain restrictions on position relative to the impeller). Id. at 28:42–47.
`
`Thus, the claim language defines certain aspects for which separate
`
`(nonoverlapping) structures are required: the double-sided chassis’s
`
`separation of the impeller and stator; and the impeller cover’s definition of
`
`the pump chamber’s inlet and outlet. As to defining the pump chamber
`
`overall, however, the claim recites the impeller cover and double-sided
`
`chassis as a collective structure, which does not exclude some structural
`
`overlap.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 15 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`Outside of the claim language, the specification only limitedly uses
`
`the terms. It explains that Figures 17 and 20 show an embodiment in which
`
`“[t]he reservoir housing 14 . . . is in the form of a double-sided chassis
`
`configured to mount an electrical motor.” Ex. 1001, 21:48–52; see id.
`
`at 2:37–46 (describing a preferred embodiment in which the motor’s rotor
`
`and stator are separated, with the stator outside the reservoir). The
`
`specification describes an impeller cover in the same embodiment, first
`
`describing “a pump chamber 46 formed by impeller cover 46A having an
`
`outlet 34 provided tangentially to the circumference of the impeller 33.”
`
`Id. at 22:64–67; accord id. at 23:21–24 (“[I]mpeller cover 46A interfaces
`
`with the recess on the underside of the reservoir 14 to define the pump
`
`chamber 46 which houses the impeller 33 . . . .”). Although the specification
`
`describes the same embodiment as including an “intermediate member 47,”
`
`claim 1 does not recite that element. See id. at 23:5–26 (describing the
`
`intermediate member), 28:19–47 (claim 1), Figs. 17, 20. The specification
`
`describes the intermediate member as a structure comprising passages to
`
`lead cooling fluid in and out of the pump chamber from the thermal
`
`exchange chamber (where heat is exchanged with the device sought to be
`
`cooled). Id. at 23:7–15. Claim 1 recites that the impeller cover, rather than
`
`an intermediate member, defines an inlet and outlet for the pump chamber.
`
`Id. at 28:42–47. Thus, the claimed “impeller cover” provides the functions
`
`that the specification describes as split between impeller cover 46 and
`
`intermediate member 47.
`
`Describing the relationship between the double-sided chassis
`
`(reservoir 14 in the Figures 17 and 20 embodiment) and the impeller cover,
`
`the specification states that “[t]he impeller cover 46A interfaces with the
`
`
`
`16
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 16 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`recess on the underside of the reservoir 14 to define the pump chamber 46
`
`which houses the impeller 33.” Id. at 23:21–26. That description addresses
`
`registration features that facilitate assembly, an aspect that does not relate to
`
`the dispute about identification of components within the assembled unit.
`
`Consistent with the claim language discussed above, the impeller cover and
`
`double-sided chassis function together to contain the cooling liquid, while
`
`the impeller cover controls the liquid’s flow pattern. See id. at 22:64–23:26.
`
`Thus, although Patent Owner argues that no embodiment discloses
`
`“the same structure, or a portion thereof, perform[ing] as both the ‘impeller
`
`cover’ and ‘double-sided chassis’” (PO Resp. 17–18), both the claim
`
`language and the written description distribute the role of forming a cooling-
`
`liquid reservoir among both claimed structures. The claim language clearly
`
`requires that (1) the double-sided chassis separate the impeller and stator;
`
`and (2) the impeller cover define flow passages in and out of the pump
`
`chamber. Beyond that, however, neither the claim language nor the written
`
`description requires a distinct structural separation between the double-sided
`
`chassis and impeller cover.
`
`We conclude that no other claim term requires express construction.
`
`See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`C. 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.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 17 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 7. Figure 6, reproduced below, is a view of Duan’s “liquid
`
`cooling cyclic mechanism.” Id. ¶ 17.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`18
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 18 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`19
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1017, Page 19 of 27
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00522
`Patent 10,078,355 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s assertions of anticipation
`
`by Duan for claims 10, 11, or 13. We conclude Patent Owner has waived
`
`such challenge. 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.”). We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions
`
`and, for the reasons set forth by Petitioner, determine that Petitioner has
`
`shown Duan anticipates claim 10 by a preponderance of the evidence. See
`
`Pet. 66–73. We reach the same conclusion regarding Petitioner’s assertions
`
`for claims 11 and 13, which depend from claim 10. See Pet. 74–75.
`
`2. Claims 1, 2, and 6
`
`Independent 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 acco