CoolIT Systems, Inc. Ex. 1003
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 1 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1 
`I. 
`II.  MATERIALS CONSIDERED ....................................................................... 3 
`III.  OVERVIEW AND LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................. 4 
`A. 
`Priority Date ......................................................................................... 4 
`B. 
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art .............................................. 4 
`C. 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 7 
`IV.  LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 13 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’355 PATENT ......................................................... 14 
`VI.  PRIOR ART REVIEW ................................................................................. 22 
`A.  Duan (Ex. 1005) ................................................................................. 22 
`B. 
`Admitted Prior Art (“APA”) .............................................................. 22 
`C. 
`Shin (Ex. 1006) ................................................................................... 23 
`D. 
`Cheon (Ex. 1007) ............................................................................... 24 
`VII.  DUAN ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, AND 13 ......................... 25 
`a. 
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................. 25 
`(a)  Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 28 
`(b)  Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 64 
`(c)  Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 67 
`(d)  Claim 10 ................................................................................... 69 
`(e)  Claim 11 ................................................................................... 85 
`(f) 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 87 
`VIII.  DUAN RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1, 2, 10, 11 AND 13 ................... 89 
`IX.  THE COMBINATION OF DUAN AND CHEON RENDERS
`OBVIOUS CLAIM 5 .................................................................................... 91 
`(a)  Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 93 
`CLAIM 8 IS RENDERED OBVIOUS OVER DUAN IN VIEW OF
`SHIN………. ................................................................................................ 96 
`(a)  Claim 8 ................................................................................... 100 
`i
`
`X. 
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 2 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`
`i. 
`
`Motivation/Rationale for combining the teachings of
`Duan with Shin ....................................................................... 103 
`XI.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 106 
`XII.  CONCLUDING STATEMENT ................................................................. 107 
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`ii
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 3 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Michael
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Reissue Patent No. RE42,034
`
`I, MARC HODES, PH.D., DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1.
`Counsel for CoolIT Systems, Inc. (“CoolIT”) has retained me as an
`
`expert to offer my opinion regarding the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`(“’355 patent”). I submit this declaration based on my personal knowledge and in
`
`support of CoolIT’s inter partes review petition (“Petition”) against the ’355 patent.
`
`2.
`
`In 1998, I received a PhD in Mechanical Engineering (minor in
`
`Chemical Engineering) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
`
`3.
`
`In August 1998, I began working at Lucent Technologies’ Bell Labs in
`
`Murray Hill, NJ as a Postdoctoral Member of Technical Staff. At Bell Labs, I was
`
`responsible for R&D in the area of thermal management of electronics and heat
`
`transfer modeling to support Lucent Technologies business units. This role included
`
`later becoming a People Manager from October 2006 to August 2008 for a Thermal
`
`Management and Acoustics Research Group as an expatriate at Bell Labs Ireland.
`
`(Alcatel and Lucent Technologies merged in April 2006.)
`
`4.
`
`I left Bell Labs in August 2008 and began an Associate Professorship
`
`at Tufts University (Medford, MA). I was promoted to Professor in 2018. My Ph.D.
`
`thesis was entitled “Measurements and Modeling of Deposition Rates from Near-
`
`Supercritical, Aqueous, Sodium Sulfate and Potassium Sulfate Solutions to a Heated
`
`Cylinder.” My area of research has been in the broad area of heat/mass/momentum
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 4 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`transfer. Major research has been done on thermal management of electronics,
`
`superhydrophobic surfaces,
`
`thermoelectric modules and mass
`
`transfer
`
`in
`
`supercritical fluids.
`
`5.
`
`I have also spent extended periods in various types of positions at the
`
`National Institute of Standards and Technology (Guest Researcher), the University
`
`of Limerick (Walton Fellow, etc.) and Imperial College London (Academic Visitor).
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on 15 U.S. Patents/Patent Applications. Most
`
`of these patents are generally related to thermal management of electronics. One of
`
`them concerns enhanced liquid cooling of electronics using superhydrophobic
`
`surfaces.
`
`7.
`
`I have over 10 years of industry experience in thermal management of
`
`electronics, with a major thrust being liquid cooling in various contexts, e.g., direct
`
`liquid metal cooling, and I have also published numerous articles and given
`
`presentations in this field. A copy of my Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) is submitted
`
`herewith as Appendix A, which describes my education, training, and experience in
`
`greater detail. My CV includes a list of publications I have authored, as well as a
`
`list of the patents on which I am a named inventor.
`
`8. My primary consulting client is CoolIT Systems, Inc. (“CoolIT”),
`
`acting as an expert on thermal management in general, including liquid cooling and
`
`advising on integration of pumps onto heat exchangers to cool CPUs.
`2
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 5 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`
`9.
`
`I have not previously testified in any judicial or administrative
`
`proceeding.
`
`10.
`
`I am billing my work in this matter at $325 per hour, with
`
`reimbursement for actual expenses. My payment is not contingent upon my
`
`testimony or the outcome of the case. I have no personal interest in the outcome of
`
`the case.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`11. The analysis provided in this declaration is based on my education as
`
`well as my experience in the field. In addition to relying upon my knowledge based
`
`on written materials and other information that was known as of May 5, 2005, I have
`
`considered the exhibits to the Petition (Exs. 1001-1009), shown below.
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355 (“’355 patent”)
`
`File history of U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355 (“’355 FH”)
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement Under
`Patent L.R. 4-3, filed on November 8, 2019 in Asetek Danmark
`A/S v. CoolIT Systems, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-00410-EMC (N.D.
`Cal.)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0185830 to Qiang-Fei Duan et
`al. (“Duan”)
`
`Certified Translation of Japanese Unexamined Patent App. Pub.
`No. 2002-151638 to Takayuki Shin (“Shin”)
`
`Exhibit
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,731,954 to Cheon (“Cheon”)
`3
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 6 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,248,006 to Bail et al.
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0173839 to Torii et al.
`
`III. OVERVIEW AND LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`Priority Date
`12. Counsel for CoolIT has explained to me that I should assume the
`
`effective filing date of the ’355 patent is May 6, 2005. I have, therefore, applied this
`
`date in considering the prior art and the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”).
`
`13.
`
`I understand Petitioner may argue that the ’355 patent is not entitled to
`
`a 2005 effective filing date. Even if this were true, my opinions would not change.
`
`B.
`14.
`
`Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I understand that my assessment of the claims of the ’355 patent must
`
`be undertaken from the perspective of what would have been known or understood
`
`by a person having ordinary skill in the art, reading the ’355 patent on its relevant
`
`filing date and in light of the specification and file history of the ’355 patent. I will
`
`refer to such a person as a “POSITA.”
`
`15.
`
`I understand that my analysis and opinions expressed in this declaration
`
`must be rendered based on the perspective of a POSITA as of the priority date of the
`
`Challenged Claims. I also understand that a POSITA is a hypothetical person who
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`4
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 7 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`claimed in the ’355 patent.
`
`16.
`
`I further understand that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, I am to consider factors including:
`
`(a) the type of problems encountered in the art or field of invention,
`
`(b) prior art solutions to those problems,
`
`(c) the rapidity with which innovations are made,
`
`(d) sophistication of the technology, and
`
`(e) the educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a POSITA is a person of ordinary creativity, but not
`
`an automaton, and that a POSITA can often fit multiple patents or prior art references
`
`together like pieces of a puzzle as a result of this ordinary creativity. I also
`
`understand that I may consider the inferences and creative steps that a POSITA
`
`would employ. In addition, I understand that a POSITA would necessarily have
`
`been capable of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable
`
`to the pertinent art. I also understand that when I consider what would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA, I am not considering what would have been obvious to me at
`
`the time, nor to the inventors, judges, laymen, those skilled in other arts, or to
`
`geniuses in the art.
`
`18. Based on my review and analysis of the Challenged Patent, the prior art
`5
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 8 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`cited herein, and the ordinary skill factors described in this section, in my opinion, a
`
`POSITA working in the field of liquid cooling systems for computer systems as of
`
`the earliest possible effective filing date of May 6, 2005 would have been
`
`knowledgeable regarding liquid cooling systems for computer systems, would have
`
`earned at least a bachelor’s degree, such as a 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 specialized in liquid cooling systems
`
`for computer systems or in similar systems. A person with less education but more
`
`relevant practical experience, depending on the nature of that experience and degree
`
`of exposure to liquid cooling systems for computer systems, could also qualify as a
`
`POSITA in the field of the ’355 patent.. (See, e.g., Ex-1001 at 1:13-50 (describing
`
`the “Background” of the ’355 patent).) A POSITA would be knowledgeable of the
`
`concepts, components, and their functions described as “prior art” in the ’355 patent
`
`such as, for example, liquid pumps, heat radiators, air fans, reservoirs, and other
`
`techniques of heat dissipation and liquid cooling. (Id.) In addition, a POSITA would
`
`be knowledgeable about electric and electromagnetic motors and their components
`
`such as, for example, electromagnetic coils, rotors, stators, AC motors, DC motors,
`
`etc.
`
`19. A person with less education but more relevant practical experience,
`
`depending on the nature of that experience and degree of exposure to liquid cooling
`6
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 9 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`systems for computer systems could also qualify as a POSITA in the field of the
`
`’355 patent.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`20. Based on the ’355 patent, the prosecution history, my experience with
`
`the relevant technology, and what a POSITA would know prior to the time of
`
`invention, I provide the following analysis for interpreting certain claim terms
`
`appearing in the ’355 patent.
`
`i.
`
`“reservoir”
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the parties have stipulated, in the pending district court
`
`action, to construe the term “reservoir,” as that term is used in claims 1, 10, and 11
`
`of the ’355 patent, to mean “single receptacle defining a fluid flow path.” (Ex-1004
`
`at 1.)
`
`ii.
`
`“chamber”
`
`22.
`
`I further understand that the parties have also stipulated to construe the
`
`term “chamber,” as that term is used in claims 1, 2, and 10 of the ’355 patent, to
`
`mean “compartment within the reservoir.” (Id. at 2.) I further note that the term
`
`“chamber” appears in the two claim terms “pump chamber” and “thermal exchange
`
`chamber.” These two terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning
`
`subject to the stipulated construction for “chamber” above.
`
`
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`7
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 10 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`
`iii.
`
`“impeller”
`
`23. An “impeller” is a conventional component that is well within the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Because the ’355 patent uses “impeller” in its common
`
`usage, this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Many people are
`
`familiar with propellers, which may be fans, arms, turbines, or blades that push fluid
`
`away. Impellers are similar in structure and operate in a rotational direction that
`
`creates a pressure difference to move fluids.
`
`iv.
`
`“stator”
`
`24. A “stator” is also a conventional component that is well within the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA. Stators are well-known components of rotary motors. A
`
`rotary motor includes stationary functional components that, among other things,
`
`create a force (e.g., electromotive force) and further include rotational components
`
`that rotate as a result of the force created by the stationary components. The rotating
`
`components are referred to as rotors and may include propellers and impellors. As
`
`a result, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “stator” to a POSITA should be
`
`the stationary functional parts of a motor during its operation. In some cases,
`
`rotating components are coupled to the stator such that the rotating components
`
`rotate about an axis created by the stator. Because the ’355 patent uses “stator” in
`
`its common usage, this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. For
`
`example, the ’355 patent explains, “wherein a stationary part of the motor of the
`8
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 11 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`pump, such as a stator of an electrical motor, is placed outside the reservoir.” (Ex-
`
`1001 at 2:40-42.) Here, the ’355 patent refers to a stator as the “stationary part of
`
`the motor of the pump.”
`
`25. When the motor is an electro-magnetic motor, a “stator” or “stator
`
`assembly” is in a fixed position as a magnetic rotor rotates as a result of magnetic
`
`fields created by stationary electro-magnetic components. These stationary electro-
`
`magnetic components include coils that receive altermatic current that create electro-
`
`magnetic fields. In this case, the stator may refer to the assembly that includes
`
`the coil as part of the stationary functional parts of a motor during its operation.
`
`v.
`
`“an inlet … positioned below a center of the
`impeller”
`
`26. The term “an inlet … positioned below a center of the impeller” should
`
`be interpreted to include the opening for fluid entrance near the center of the impeller
`
`along the axis around which the impeller rotates. For example, the ’355 patent
`
`describes an “inlet” as follows: “The inlet of the pump chamber 46 is the entire
`
`opening into the cavity that the pump chamber configures, said cavity being in direct
`
`communication with the interior of the reservoir housing 14 as such.” (Ex-1001 at
`
`23:1-5.) An example of this is illustrated in FIG. 20 of the ’355 patent where a red
`
`box is added to show an inlet defined by the impeller cover positioned below a center
`
`of the impeller (item 33)
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`9
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 12 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`
`
`
`I note above that the phrase “below a center of the impeller” is a relative term
`
`depending on the orientation of the impeller. Thus, if the impeller is rotated, the
`
`location of “below a center of the impeller” also moves relative to the impeller. For
`
`example, if FIG. 20 of the patent were rotated clockwise so that the impeller 33 faces
`
`to the left (instead of downward), then “an inlet defined by the impeller cover
`
`positioned below a center of the impeller” would refer to the opening to the left of
`
`the impeller. This kind of rotation is common in, for example, a tower computer
`
`case in which the motherboard is vertical as opposed to horizontal. As a result, the
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`10
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 13 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`heat-generating processor will
`
`be installed vertically, which
`
`in turn will cause the claimed
`
`device that is cooling the
`
`processor to be accordingly
`
`rotated as exemplarily shown
`
`on the right. Such rotation
`
`would not materially alter the
`
`functioning of the device, as
`
`would have been understood
`
`and appreciated by a POSITA.
`
`This further supports the construction of this phrase to mean an opening for fluid
`
`entrance near the center of the impeller along the axis around which the impeller
`
`rotates. In sum, the term should mean the opening for fluid entrance near the center
`
`of the impeller along the axis around which the impeller rotates.
`
`vi.
`
`“heat radiator”
`
`27. A “heat radiator” is also a conventional component that is well within
`
`the knowledge of a POSITA. Heat radiators are well-known components of systems
`
`that require cooling. This concept is documented as “prior art” in the ’355 patent
`
`which states that a heat radiator may serve “as a means for removing the heat from
`11
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 14 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`the liquid by means of the air fan 10 blowing air through the heat radiator.” (Ex.-
`
`1001 at 10:63-65 and FIG. 3.) This is consistent with the common use of the term
`
`“heat radiator.” Specially, a heat radiator commonly refers to a system that transfers
`
`thermal energy (e.g., heat) by conduction/convection from one medium to another
`
`medium and may include components such as pipes or fins to transfer heat. For
`
`these reasons, this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`vii. Other terms
`
`28. As to other terms, a POSITA would have understood the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the term “double-sided chassis” to be “two-sided frame or
`
`base.” Further, a POSITA would have understood the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of “a first end or a second end of the thermal exchange chamber” to be “a first edge
`
`or a second edge of the thermal exchange chamber.” To the extent applicable, I have
`
`rendered my opinions using these constructions. Although district court claim
`
`construction proceedings are ongoing, for purposes of these IPRs, I believe no
`
`additional specific constructions are required; I understand that the other claim terms
`
`in these IPRs will be construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`I further understand that the claims are read in light of the patent’s specification and
`
`that claims themselves often provide significant guidance as to the meaning of a
`
`particular term.
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 15 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`29.
`I have been asked to opine on whether certain claims are either
`
`anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`I have been instructed that anticipation means that a single prior art
`
`reference discloses each claim element and discloses the arrangement of each claim
`
`element. To disclose a claim element, the prior art does not have to expressly spell
`
`out the claim element as along as a POSITA, reading the reference, would at once
`
`envisage the claimed arrangement or combination
`
`31.
`
`I have been instructed that obviousness means that one or more prior
`
`art references disclose each claim element of a claim and that there must be an
`
`apparent reason to combine the known elements to arrive at the claims. The analysis
`
`is a flexible one, accounting for the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ. The claims must be read as a whole when
`
`evaluating whether it is obvious.It is my understanding that a claimed invention is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`time the alleged invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which
`
`the subject matter pertains. This is sometimes described as “obviousness.” I
`
`understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior
`13
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 16 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`art and the claimed subject matter. The analysis may also consider secondary
`
`considerations, such as commercial success, unmet but long felt need and failure of
`
`others.
`
`32.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court, in KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) and other cases, has recognized several rationales
`
`for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of the
`
`claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following: combining
`
`prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; a
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions;
`
`applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results; choosing
`
`from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art
`
`that would have led a POSITA to modify the prior art or combine prior art teachings
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’355 PATENT
`33. The ’355 patent characterizes its field of invention as follows:
`
`“The present invention relates to a cooling system for a central
`processing unit (CPU) or other processing unit of a computer system.
`More specifically, the invention relates to a liquid-cooling system for a
`mainstream computer system such as a PC.” (Ex-1001 at 1:13-17.)
`14
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 17 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`
`34. The ’355 patent relates to a liquid-cooling system for a computer
`
`system. The specification purports to disclose embodiments of a liquid-cooling
`
`system that is more efficient, easier to use, and more compact with integrated
`
`components than prior art cooling systems. (Ex-1001 at 1:13-2:24.)
`
`35. The ’355 patent further states (and subsequently claims) that these
`
`purported improvements may be achieved by having an integrated element
`
`comprising the heat exchange interface, the reservoir of cooling liquid, and the pump
`
`for pumping the cooling liquid. (Id. at 1:54-2:36; claims 1-16.)
`
`36. The following figures capture the main characteristics of the purported
`
`invention claimed in the Challenged Claims.
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`15
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 18 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`
`37.
`
` “FIG.
`
`8
`
`[which
`
`
`
`should
`
`have
`
`been
`
`FIG. 7,1
`
`reproduced on the right] is a
`
`perspective view of the cooling
`
`system
`
`showing
`
`the
`
`reservoir
`
`housing
`
`14 with
`
`the
`
`heat
`
`exchanging surface (not shown)
`
`and the pump (not shown) inside
`
`the
`
`reservoir. The
`
`tube
`
`inlet
`
`connection and the tube outlet
`
`connection are connected to a heat
`
`radiator by means of connecting
`
`
`
`
`
`tubes 24 and 25 through which the cooling liquid flows into and out of the reservoir
`
`and the heat radiator, respectively. Within the heat radiator 11, the cooling liquid
`
`passes a number of channels for conducting/convecting the heat, which has been
`
`dissipated into the cooling liquid inside the reservoir, and to the surroundings of the
`
`
`1 A POSITA would have understood the figure numbers of FIG. 7 and FIG. 8 in the
`
`patent’s description are transposed. The description for FIG. 8 is actually for FIG.
`
`7, and the description for FIG. 7 is actually for FIG. 8.
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`16
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 19 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`heat exchanger. The air fan 10 blows air past the channels of the heat radiator in
`
`order to cool the radiator and thereby cooling the cooling liquid flowing inside the
`
`channels through the heat radiator and back into the reservoir.” (Ex. 1001 at 16:16-
`
`30.)
`
`38. The internal structures of the claimed reservoir 14 are depicted in FIGS.
`
`17 and 20, reproduced below. “FIG. 17 shows a preferred possible embodiment of
`
`a reservoir according to the invention. The reservoir housing 14, as shown in FIGS.
`
`17 and 20, is in the form of a double-sided chassis configured to mount an electrical
`
`motor.” (Id. at 21:48-52.) “The reservoir housing 14 may … be provided with an
`
`inlet (not shown [in FIGS. 17 or 20]) and an outlet (not shown [in FIGS. 17 or 20])
`
`for the cooling liquid. The inlet and the outlet are provided along a surface of the
`
`reservoir facing downward and inwards when seen in the perspective view of the
`
`drawing. The inlet and the outlet lead to a radiator (not shown) intended for cooling
`
`the cooling liquid after having been heated by the processing unit via a heat
`
`exchanging surface[.]” (Id. at 22:31-38.) A POSITA would have understood that
`
`“the inlet” and “the outlet” mentioned here “are connected to a heat radiator by
`
`means of connecting tubes 24 and 25” as shown in FIG. 7 (Id. at 16:19-23; FIG. 7.)
`
`“The radiator may be placed nearby or distant from the reservoir housing 14,
`
`depending on the set-up of the computer system. In one possible embodiment, the
`
`radiator is placed in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir, thereby possible
`17
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 20 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`
`excluding any tubing extending between the radiator and the inlet and the outlet,
`
`respectively. Such embodiment provides a very compact configuration of the entire
`
`cooling system, namely a monolithic configuration where all elements needed for
`
`the cooling system are incorporated in one unit.” (Id., 22:39-48).
`
`39.
`
`“The reservoir housing 14 has a recess 40 in the centre on the upper
`
`side of the reservoir. The recess 40 is intended for accommodating a stator 37 of an
`
`electrical motor driving an impeller 33 of the pump, said impeller being attached to
`
`a shaft 38 of a rotor 39 of the electrical motor. The recess has an orifice 41, four
`
`sidewalls 42, a bottom 43 and a circular jacket 44 extending from the bottom 43 of
`18
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 21 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`the recess 40 and outwards towards the orifice 41 of the recess 40. The interior (see
`
`FIG. 20) of the jacket 44 is intended for encompassing the rotor 39 of the pump. As
`
`shown in FIG. 20, the impeller 33 is housed in a recess on the underside of the
`
`reservoir housing 14, the recess being an extension of the interior of the jacket 44.”
`
`(Id. at 21:58-22:9.)
`
`
`
`
`
`40.
`
`“Thereby, a liquid-proof division is made between the rotor 39 of the
`19
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 22 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`motor, said rotor 39 being placed inside the interior of the jacket 44 and being
`
`submerged in the cooling liquid, and the stator 37 of the pump, said stator 37 being
`
`positioned in the recess 40 and surrounding the exterior of the jacket 44.
`
`Accordingly, the stator 37 need not be sealed against the cooling liquid, because the
`
`recess 40 together with the jacket 44 ensures the stator staying dry from the cooling
`
`liquid, but the stator 37 still being capable of driving the rotor 39, when being
`
`supplied with electrical power from a power supply (not shown) of the computer
`
`system.” (Id. at 22:10-20.) “Along an outer circumferential extension, the reservoir
`
`housing 14 is provided with protrusions 45 extending outwardly from the
`
`circumferential extension. The protrusions are intended for cooperating with a clip
`
`(see description below) for fastening the reservoir housing 14 to the CPU or other
`
`processing unit of the computer system. The protrusions 45 are shown as a plurality
`
`of singular protrusions. Alternatively, the protrusions may be only one continuous
`
`protrusion extending outwardly and around the circumferential extension.” (Id. at
`
`22:21-30.)
`
`41. A POSITA would have understood that the resulting system looks like
`
`ADMIN 36471848v12
`
`20
`
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. Ex. 1020, Page 23 of 121
`Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
`IPR2022-01317
`
`

`

`Declaration of Marc Hodes, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,078,355
`
`the following example:
`
`42. The cyc