Compass Datacenters LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 8, 2021

2020003653 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 15/464,059 03/20/2017 Christopher J. Crosby JR. 029535-0005PX 8388 34284 7590 01/08/2021 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 18575 Jamboree Road 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 EXAMINER SCHULT, ALLEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/08/2021 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patents@rutan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. CROSBY JR. and JOSE ALBERTO RUIZ Appeal 2020-003653 Application 15/464,059 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Compass Datacenters, LLC. Appeal Br. 5. Appeal 2020-003653 Application 15/464,059 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a modular datacenter facility having heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus, comprising: a modular datacenter facility constructed with at least an initial set of building modules of different types of functionality to form the modular datacenter facility, wherein each building module of the set is a pre-engineered, standardized building block having a standardized, pre- approved architectural design and layout, wherein a first type of building module in the modular datacenter facility is a data-floor building module that is pre-engineered and has the pre-approved architectural design and layout to house computing systems, wherein the computing systems include servers and storage devices housed in hot and cool zones of the data-floor building module and routers and switches to transport data traffic between the servers as well as transport traffic to a world exterior to the modular datacenter facility, wherein a first set of sidewall-connected heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) units for the data-floor building module connect to a sidewall of the modular datacenter facility to supply conditioned air into an air- supply plenum of the sidewall in order to cool the computing systems including the servers, storage devices, routers, and switches, and other electronic components housed in the data-floor building module of the modular datacenter facility, wherein the first set of the sidewall-connected HVAC units have heat exchangers to remove heat from recirculating conditioned air inside the data-floor building module and exchange the heat to air outside the data-floor building Appeal 2020-003653 Application 15/464,059 3 module without introducing air from outside the data- floor building module, wherein the first set of the sidewall-connected HVAC units connecting to the sidewall allow for fewer penetrations in a roof of the data-floor building module, thereby minimizing an amount of leaks potentially occurring in the roof, and thereby minimizing risk of any damage to the computing systems and the other electronic components housed in the data-floor building module from the leaks, and wherein the roof includes a vapor-to-air sealant layer on top of a concrete layer to further prevent leaks from potentially occurring in the data-floor building module from in through the roof. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Loveley US 3,653,431 Apr. 4, 1972 VanGilder US 2006/0260338 A1 Nov. 23, 2006 Siegel US 2008/0243421 A1 Oct. 2, 2008 Armillas US 2009/0229194 A1 Sept. 17, 2009 Tong US 2011/0023388 A1 Feb. 3, 2011 Pini US 2012/0260587 A1 Oct. 18, 2012 Bauchot US 2013/0048266 A1 Feb. 28, 2013 Rodriquez US 2013/0260666 A1 Oct. 3, 2013 Iwaki US 2014/0216259 A1 Aug. 7, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, 14, and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tong, VanGilder, Siegel, and Loveley. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tong, VanGilder, Siegel, Loveley, Bauchot, and Iwaki. Appeal 2020-003653 Application 15/464,059 4 Claims 3, 9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tong, VanGilder, Siegel, Loveley, and Rodriquez. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tong, VanGilder, Siegel, Loveley, Armillas, and Pini. OPINION Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, 14, and 16–18 as a group. See Appeal Br. 17–52. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, 14, and 16–18 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant does not provide separate argument for the patentability of claims 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 19, and 20. Tong Findings The Examiner finds that Tong teaches a number of the features recited in claim 1, but does not teach the “sidewall-connected heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (‘HVAC’) units for the data-floor building module connect to a sidewall of the modular datacenter facility” or “a vapor-to-air sealant layer on top of a concrete layer to further prevent leaks from potentially occurring in the data-floor building module from in through the roof.” Final Act. 3–4. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings in connection with Tong. VanGilder Findings The Examiner finds that VanGilder teaches the “sidewall-connected heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (‘HVAC’) units for the data-floor building module connect to a sidewall of the modular datacenter facility” and proposes modifying Tong’s teachings accordingly. Final Act. 4. Appeal 2020-003653 Application 15/464,059 5 Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that VanGilder teaches a “sidewall-connected [HVAC] units for the data-floor building module connect to a sidewall of the modular datacenter facility.” Rather, Appellant contends that VanGilder fails to teach “HVAC [units] connecting to the sidewall units allow for fewer penetrations in a roof of the data-floor building module, thereby minimizing an amount of leaks potentially occurring in the roof . . . and thereby minimizing risk of any damage. . . from the leaks.” Appeal Br. 22–33. Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive because it fails to identify any structure missing in VanGilder that is relied on in the Examiner’s finding. The Examiner explains that because VanGilder has “no holes in roof for [an] air conditioner, [there is] no leaking due to [an] air conditioner, thereby minimizing the amount of leaks.” Final Act. 4. In the Examiner’s combination, Tong’s datacenter is modified to have a sidewall-connected HVAC system, rather than a roof mounted HVAC system, which necessarily means that there are no holes in the roof for HVAC system mounting because the HVAC system is not mounted to the roof. Final Act. 4. Loveley Findings The Examiner finds “Tong in view of VanGilder . . . suggests but does not explicitly teach that the . . . HVAC units have heat exchangers to remove heat from recirculating conditioned air . . . without introducing air from outside the data-floor building module.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that “Loveley teaches sidewall-connected HVAC units have heat exchangers . . . to remove heat from recirculating conditioned air inside the data floor building module and exchange the heat to air outside the data-floor module Appeal 2020-003653 Application 15/464,059 6 without introducing air from outside the data-floor building module” and proposes further modifying Tong’s teachings accordingly. Final Act. 5. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings in connection with Loveley. Siegel Findings The Examiner finds that “Siegel teaches sealing the roof with a vapor- to-air sealant layer” and proposes further modifying Tong’s teachings accordingly. Final Act. 5. Appellant does not dispute this finding, but alleges that Siegel is “non- analogous art and is trying to solve a different problem of doing mock ups to figure out energy savings for a building.” Appeal Br. 46. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s characterization of the problem as “preventing water from entering” the building or address the specific portions of Siegel the Examiner’s cites as pertinent to this problem. Adv. Act. 4 (citing Siegel ¶ 20).2 Rather, Appellant simply alleges that “Siegel teaching a barrier on top of a structure for the purpose of creating a seal for heat is solving a different problem,” and “[d]isclosing a same structure in a different field of art is not pertinent to the particular problem being solved.” Appeal Br. 46. We are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s determination that Siegel is analogous art because Siegel expressly states that its “roof . . . may include a protective top layer 31, such as gravel, shingles, a membrane or the like; a sealing layer 32 for keeping out liquid and vapor water, such as a membrane or the like.” Siegel ¶ 20 (emphasis added). Thus, Siegel is not 2 “Adv. Act.” refers to the Examiner’s Advisory Action mailed September 6, 2019. Appeal 2020-003653 Application 15/464,059 7 simply “a barrier on top of a structure for the purpose of creating a seal for heat” as Appellant alleges. Appeal Br. 46. Proposed Modifications Appellant’s remaining contentions allege that there is no motivation to modify Tong’s teachings (Appeal Br. 36–38), there is no reasonable expectation of success in the proposed modifications to Tong’s teachings (id. at 45), the proposed modifications to Tong’s teachings render Tong’s datacenter unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or changes its principle of operation (id. at 46–50), VanGilder teaches away from use of an HVAC system to control moisture (Appeal Br. 38–40), and the Office Action’s analysis is incomplete (id. at 50–51). These contentions lack merit. For example, Appellant alleges that “Tang’s patent in its express disclosure . . . already accomplishes the goal of cooling the electronics so that they do not get damaged with overheating and how to save energy,” so “no motivation exists for this reason to modify Tong.” Appeal Br. 38. This allegation does not address that VanGilder’s sidewall mounted HVAC system eliminates the penetrations in the roof that result from roof mounted systems. Appellant’s allegation regarding no reasonable expectation of success in modifying Tong’s datacenter amounts to nothing more than a general allegation, without meaningful explanation. Appellant’s contentions that the proposed modifications to Tong’s teachings render Tong’s datacenter unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or changes its principle of operation allege that “exhaust[ing] the warm air out of the data center to be . . . replaced by fresh cool air (50) would change the principle of operation of Tong and/or render the Tong inoperable for its Appeal 2020-003653 Application 15/464,059 8 intended purpose” because “Tong’s claims and summary of the invention want to recapture the heated air and use the heated air in its multipurpose room.” Appeal Br. 49 (emphasis omitted).3 As the Examiner explains, Appellant “does not read and take into account the entire motivation state[d by] the Examiner, which states the motivation of cooling electronic[s] so that they do not get damage[d] with overheating when the main building [of Tong] does not require the heat (like during the hot months of the year).” Adv. Act. 3. With respect to the alleged teaching away, Appellant alleges that “in paragraph 0005, VanGilder, per MPEP 2143, actually teaches away/discourages from use of HVAC to remove and/or control moisture.” Appeal Br. 39. This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 has no requirements related to removing and/or controlling moisture. Appellant further alleges, without meaningful discussion, that “the final Office Action is not properly analyzing the 1) the scope and content of the prior art; as well as 2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.” Appeal Br. 50. Summary For the reasons set forth above, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. Accordingly, we are also not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–20. 3 Appellant includes another contention on the subsequent page of the Appeal Brief that we cannot address because it stops mid-sentence. See Appeal Br. 50 (“Appellant asserts the law is”). Appeal 2020-003653 Application 15/464,059 9 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, 14, 16–18 103(a) Tong, VanGilder, Siegel, Loveley 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 11, 12, 14, 16–18 5, 15 103(a) Tong, VanGilder, Siegel, Loveley, Bauchot, Iwaki 5, 15 3, 9, 13, 19 103(a) Tong, VanGilder, Siegel, Loveley, Rodriquez 3, 9, 13, 19 10, 20 103(a) Tong, VanGilder, Siegel, Loveley, Armillas, Pini 10, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED