Ex Parte Lewis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2013

11533359 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/533,359 09/19/2006 Richard Evans Lewis II 3001.077 4291
36790 7590 09/13/2013
TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
PO BOX 49309
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277-0076
EXAMINER
DATSKOVSKIY, MICHAIL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2013 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
____________

Ex parte RICHARD EVANS LEWIS II and
DENNIS W. VANLITH
____________

Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

2
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-17, 58, 62, 64-75, and 78-922. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to cabinets for rack-mount computer and data
storage equipment with thermal management thereof. Spec. [0003].
Appellants disclose that “[c]abinets are typically frames on which panels or
doors, or both, are hung.” Id. at [0004]. Further, Appellants disclose “the
electronic equipment mounted therein tends to generate large amounts of
thermal energy that needs to be exhausted away” and “thermal energy
management has become a significant issue confronting today’s rack,
cabinet, frame and enclosure manufacturers, the manufacturers of the
electronic equipment, and the users of such equipment.” Id. at [0006].
Appellants note that while cylindrical exhaust ducts extending upwardly
away from a top surface of the enclosure provide a path for hot exhaust air to

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest in this appeal as Chatsworth
Products, Inc.
2 We note Appellants indicate that claim 92 stands finally rejected, this claim
is not contained in the list of claims appealed. App. Br. 3, Section III,
“Status of Claims”. In addition, this claim has not been included in any of
the grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal. Id., Section VI, “Grounds
of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal”. For purposes of our decision, we
will consider claim 92 to have been inadvertently omitted from both sections
and treat claim 92 as being on appeal in accordance with the Examiner’s
Answer. See Ans. 9.
3 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Brief (App. Br.) filed August 31, 2010,
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed September 27, 2010, and Appellants’
Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed November 29, 2010.
Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

3
be expelled, “it has been found that heated air tends to pool or collect in
portions of the interior of enclosures rather than be guided to the exhaust
ducts.” Id. at [0019]. Thus, Appellants disclose the present invention
includes a rectangular opening in the enclosure’s top panel with a
rectangular cross-section exhaust air duct extending from the opening. Id. at
[0022]. Appellants teach a rectangular cross-section “provides for a
considerably larger cross-section than that of conventional cylindrical
exhaust air ducts, and thus much greater flow-through.” Id. at [0053]. In
addition, Appellants teach “because the rectangular shape of the exhaust air
duct [14] is similar to the rectangular shape of the back of the enclosure 10,
exhaust air flows freely through the exhaust air duct 14.” Id. at [0058].
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An electronic equipment enclosure, comprising:
(a) a frame structure formed from a plurality of support posts;
(b) a plurality of panels at least partially enclosing the frame structure,
the panels including at least
(i) side panels,
(ii) a back panel, and
(iii) a top panel having a rectangular opening,
(iv) wherein the panels define a single compartment in which an
electronic component is mounted; and
(c) an exhaust air duct extending upward from the top panel, wherein
the exhaust air duct is rectangular in cross-section and is disposed in
surrounding relation to, and in fluid communication with, the top
panel opening such that the exhaust air duct of rectangular cross-
section is in direct and unobstructed fluid communication with the
interior of the single compartment;
Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

4
(d) wherein hot air from the electronic component travels vertically,
within the single compartment, to the rectangular top panel opening
without passing through the back panel of the compartment;
(e) wherein the exhaust air duct is adapted to segregate hot air being
exhausted from the compartment from cool air entering the
compartment, thereby improving thermal management of the
enclosure.
App. Br., Claims App’x.
Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
1) Claims 1-9, 12-13, 58, 62, 64-664, 69, 70, 87 and 88 are rejected as
being unpatentable over Coglitore5 in view of Johnson6;
2) Claims 10, 11, 67, 68, 75, 78-847, and 89-92 are rejected as being
unpatentable over Coglitore in view of Johnson, and further in
view of Fukuda8;
3) Claims 14-16 and 71-73 are rejected as being unpatentable over
Coglitore et al in view of Johnson, and further in view of
Schwenk9;
4) Claims 17 and 74 are rejected as being unpatentable over Coglitore
in view of Johnson, and further in view of Day10; and

4 The Examiner’s statement of this rejection included cancelled claims 59-
61, and 63. Ans. 4.
5 US 7,372,695 B2, issued May 13, 2008.
6 US 2005/0170770 A1, published August 4, 2005.
7 The Examiner’s statement of this rejection included cancelled claims 76
and 77. Ans. 9.
8 US 5,941,767, issued August 24, 1999.
9 US 5,294,748, issued March 15, 1994.
Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

5
5) Claims 85, 86 are rejected as being unpatentable over Coglitore in
view of Johnson and Fukuda, and further in view of Schwenk.
Ans. 4-11.
ANALYSIS
Appellants primarily argue in favor of the patentability of independent
claim 1, and only separately argue dependent claims 58, 68, and 75. See
generally, App. Br. 12-28; Reply Br. 2-7. Appellants submit dependent
claims 62, 64-66, and 69-70 stand or fall together with claim 58, dependent
claim 68 stands or falls alone, and dependent claims 78-84 stand or fall
together with claim 75. Accordingly, the remaining dependent claims stand
or fall with independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Further, we
note Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 75 parallel those for claim 68.
Accordingly, as set forth the below, our disposition as to claim 68 also
disposes of the arguments as to claim 75.
Appellants raise the following issues for our consideration:
1. Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding Johnson teaches an
exhaust air duct having a rectangular cross-sectional shape such that it would
have been obvious to provide Coglitore’s opening in the top panel and
exhaust air duct with a rectangular cross section? (See App. Br. 12-19;
Reply Br. 2-6.)
2. Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that the proposed
combination of Coglitore and Johnson provides a generally planar top panel
having inner edges defining the rectangular opening? (See App. Br. 20-21.)

10 US 2005/0225936 A1, published October 13, 2005.
Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

6
3. Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that Fukuda teaches
telescoping air duct sections for adjusting the length of the duct, such that it
would have been obvious to provide Coglitore with telescoping duct sections
in order to adjust the length of the duct extending from the top panel? (See
id. at 22-26; Reply Br. 6-7).
We answer these questions in the negative for the reasons explained in
the Answer and below, and therefore sustain all the Examiner’s rejections.

Issue 1
The Examiner finds Coglitore teaches an electronic equipment
enclosure substantially as recited in claim 1, including an exhaust air duct
524 extending upward from an opening 522 in a top panel of the enclosure,
wherein the exhaust air duct 524 is disposed in surrounding relation
to, and in unobstructed fluid communication with the top panel
opening 522 such that the exhaust air duct is in direct fluid
communication with the interior of the single compartment, wherein
the exhaust air duct is adapted to segregate hot air being exhausted
from the enclosure from cool air entering the enclosure, thereby
improving thermal management of the enclosure.

Ans. 5, referring to Coglitore, Figure 5. Appellants do not contest these
findings.
The Examiner acknowledges Coglitore does not teach that the
opening and exhaust air duct are rectangular in cross-section. Id. The
Examiner instead finds Johnson teaches an electronic equipment enclosure
includes an opening-exhaust port 16 therethrough that is rectangular
in shape (explicitly shown as rectangular in Figs. 3A and 7); and an
exhaust air duct 225 extending upward from the top panel of the
enclosure 100, wherein the exhaust air duct 225 is rectangular in
Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

7
cross-section and is disposed in surrounding relation to, and in fluid
communication with, the rectangular top opening 16.

Id. at 6. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art to modify Coglitore’s enclosure with an opening in
the top panel and a mating exhaust air duct of rectangular cross-section “as a
substitute equivalent of a round air duct known for the same purpose.” Id. at
8.
Appellants contend that Johnson fails to disclose or suggest use of a
top panel having a rectangular opening. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2.
Appellants argue that Johnson’s “exhaust port 16 is not on the top of the
enclosure 100, but rather is disposed at a top of the fan unit 10, which itself
is connected or mounted to the enclosure 100.” App. Br. 13. As such,
Appellants argue “it is irrelevant whether the exhaust port 16 in Johnson is
itself rectangular, as the exhaust port 16 is not an opening through a panel
of an enclosure .” Id. Although Appellants acknowledge rectangular
openings are known, Appellants submit Johnson’s rectangular shape for the
exhaust port in the fan unit “can no more be characterized as teaching use of
an enclosure panel having a rectangular opening than can the rectangular
shape of a door or window.” Id.
We have considered the respective positions clearly articulated by the
Examiner and Appellants, and find a preponderance of the evidence favors
the Examiner’s obviousness conclusions. We note the Examiner has fully
addressed Appellants’ arguments above. See generally Ans. 11-14. The
Examiner notes that Coglitore’s enclosure includes a top panel having an
opening matching the shape and size of an exhaust duct extending upwardly
from the opening. Id. at 12-13. Coglitore does not teach the rectangular
Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

8
cross-sectional shape of the opening or the exhaust unit. Id. at 13.
Nonetheless, Johnson suggests a rectangular cross-sectional shape for an
exhaust air duct is known. Id. The mere selection of a particular known
cross-sectional shape for an exhaust air duct, in this case rectangular, as
taught in Johnson, is well within the ordinary, routine mechanical skill in the
art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill.”); id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425
U.S. 273, 282 (1976)) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with
each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields
no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination
is obvious.”).
As noted by the Examiner, the ordinary artisan would have had a
reasonable expectation of success in using a rectangular opening and exhaust
air duct in Coglitore as use thereof for the same purpose was known in the
art as evidenced by Johnson, i.e. exhausting hot air from an electronic
equipment enclosure, to obtain a predictable result. Accordingly, we have
no trouble concluding the provision of a rectangular cross-section for
Coglitore’s opening and exhaust air duct would have been prima facie
obvious. We note Appellants do not argue or present objective evidence of
non-obviousness.

Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

9
Issue 2
Appellants note claim 58 depends from claim 1, but additionally
recites that the top panel includes a plurality of outer edges defining a
perimeter of the top panel, a generally planar surface, and a plurality of inner
edges partially defining a rectangular opening of the top panel. App. Br. 20.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s position that Johnson suggests a top panel
having a rectangular opening is problematic as Johnson fails to teach an
opening through the top panel of the enclosure. Id. at 20-21.
However, this argument misapprehends the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Coglitore and Johnson. Coglitore teaches the opening
through the top panel of the enclosure. Ans. 4. It is plainly evident then that
Coglitore’s top panel has a generally planar surface, a plurality of outer
edges defining the perimeter of the top panel, and a plurality of inner edges
defining the inner edge of the opening to which the exhaust air duct is
connected. Id. at 9. The only structure Coglitore does not specifically
disclose is the rectangular cross section of the opening and exhaust air duct,
which feature as explained above would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art in view of Johnson. Accordingly, for the reasons
given above, we conclude the structure of claim 58 would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art.

Issue 3
Appellants note claim 68 depends from claims 1 and 58, but
additionally recites that the exhaust air duct includes a first rectangular open-
ended duct section that nests inside and may be telescopically withdrawn
from a second rectangular open-ended duct section. App. Br. 22; Reply Br.
Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

10
6. The Examiner relies on Fukuda as teaching telescoping rectangular air
duct sections to provide length adjustable rectangular air ducts. Ans. 9. In
particular, the Examiner directs attention to Fukuda, column 2, lines 43-49,
wherein Fukuda discloses “[a]s an example of such adjusting means, it is
considered that the duct comprises a plurality of duct portions which are
telescopically connected together to be adjustable over the length of the
duct.” Id. at 14-15. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to
employ telescoping sections in the exhaust air duct of Coglitore in order to
adjust the distance to which the exhaust air duct extends above the top panel
of the enclosure. Id. at 10.
Appellants however argue that Fukuda’s teaching of plural
telescoping duct sections for adjusting the length of the duct refers not to
what it literally means, but to later disclosure regarding the use of extendable
bellows. App. Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 6. Appellants base this argument on the
fact that Fukuda was originally a Japanese language document that was
translated into English, the fact that Fukuda fails to further mention
telescoping duct sections, and that an alternative definition of “telescoping”
includes “to become compressed or condensed.” App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br.
7. As such, Appellants argue that Fukuda fails to disclose nested,
telescoping sections as required by claim 68. App. Br. 24.
The Examiner counters that regardless of the translation accuracy and
Appellants’ asserted meaning for Fukuda’s disclosed telescoping duct
sections, this disclosure would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art as encompassing nested, telescoping duct sections. Ans. 15. We agree.
“A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply
the described invention or a preferred embodiment.” In re Applied
Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

11
Materials, Inc. 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Moreover, “a
reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples.” In
re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972).
Notwithstanding the fact that Fukuda does not provide a specific
example of telescoping duct sections, one skilled in the art would have
understood Fukuda’s disclosure to have at least suggested telescoping duct
sections that are nested, as well as bellows duct sections. As noted by
Appellants, both interpretations are plausible based on the dictionary
definition of the term “telescoping”. It matters not that Fukuda discloses
only a specific embodiment of bellows duct sections, as nested duct sections
sliding or passing within each other would also have been suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art. As such, we find sufficient rational underpinning
to support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.”), quoted with approval in KSR, 550 U.S.
at 418. Appellants have not provided persuasive argument as to reversible
error in the findings underpinning the Examiner’s conclusion.

Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
applied prior art with Appellants’ countervailing arguments for
nonobviousness and conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence and
weight of argument, that the claimed invention encompassed by the appealed
Appeal 2011-003364
Application 11/533,359

12
claims would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-17, 58, 62, 64-75, and 78-92 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
bar