Ex Parte Belady

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2012

11678590 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN L. BELADY
____________________

Appeal 2011-007447
Application 11/678,590
Technology Center 2800

Before: MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-007447
Application 11/678,590

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to redundant cooling
systems and methods for cooling computer systems and other electronics
(Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A redundant cooling system for computers and other
electronics, comprising:

at least one cooling element thermally connecting a
cooling fluid to one or more heat-generating components so that
the cooling fluid absorbs heat from the heat-generating
components during operation;

a primary coolant and a secondary coolant; and

at least one heat exchanger thermally connected to both
the primary coolant and the secondary coolant via different
pathways the at least one heat exchanger operable to transfer
heat absorbed by the cooling liquid to at least one of the
primary coolant or the secondary coolant.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5-13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Memory (US Patent App. Pub. No.
2003/0057546 A1, Mar. 27, 2003) and DiStefano (US Patent App. Pub. No.
2005/0145371 A1, Jul. 7, 2005).
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Memory, DiStefano, and Severson (US
5,474,120, Dec. 12, 1995).
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
Appeal 2011-007447
Application 11/678,590

3
upon the teachings of Memory, DiStefano, and Watanabe (US 7,088,565 B2,
Aug. 8, 2006).
The Examiner rejected claims 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of DiStefano, and Goth (US Patent App. Pub. No.
2005/0115257 A1, Jun. 2, 2005).

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the combination of Memory and DiStefano fails to
teach a primary coolant and a secondary coolant (App. Br. 8).
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. That is, we agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Appellant merely asserts both
Memory and DiStefano lack a secondary coolant (App. Br. 8), but have not
addressed the Examiner’s findings. The Reply Brief argues the Examiner’s
conclusions that DiStefano discloses air as a secondary coolant, reading
upon Appellant’s secondary coolant, fails because DiStefano does not
disclose a redundant cooling system (Reply Br. 5). We do not agree.
DiStefano’s Figure 4 shows a redundant cooling system (see heat pipe 405,
fan 432, and liquid coolant 420) (Ans. 10). Appellant has provided no
substantive arguments to overcome the Examiner’s rejection, other than to
restate that DiStefano does not disclose primary and secondary coolants and
a redundant cooling system (Reply. Br. 5). Thus, the Examiner did not err in
concluding the combination of Memory and DiStefano would render
Appellant’s claimed invention obvious.

Appeal 2011-007447
Application 11/678,590

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

tkl