Ex Parte Pimlott

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2017

13526286 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2017)

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.
13/526,286 06/18/2012 Roger Mitchell PIMLOTT STL 070208.00 2207
64776 7590
HolzerlPLaw, P.C.
dba Holzer Patel Drennan
216 16th Street
Suite 1350
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
JUNG, JAY YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2126
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2017 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):
hiplaw@blackhillsip.com
docket @ hpdlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGER MITCHELL PIMLOTT1
Appeal 2017-006172
Application 13/526,286
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and ALEX S. YAP
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6 through 12, and 14 through 18. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is Seagate Technology
LLC. App. Br. 3
Appeal 2017-006172
Application 13/526,286
INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a controller for controlling
the speed of a cooling apparatus. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the invention and reproduced below:
1. A controller for controlling the speed of a cooling device
in an electronic apparatus,
wherein the controller is constructed and arranged to
determine a speed value for the cooling device in accordance
with a measured temperature received from a temperature
sensor associated with the apparatus, the speed value being
selected from a set of N speed values, the controller being
arranged to control the speed of the cooling device in
accordance with the selected speed value,
wherein when moving from a low speed value greater
than zero to a higher speed value, a first pair of adjacent speed
values has a first step therebetween, a second pair of adjacent
speed values has a minimum step therebetween, and a third pair
of adjacent speed values has a third step therebetween, the
minimum step being less than the first step and the third step.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mizumura (US 8,416,571 B2, iss. Apr. 9,
2013), Vladimir (US 6,340,874 Bl, iss. Jan. 22, 2002) and Ismail (US
4,733,541, iss. Mar. 29, 1988). Answer 2.2
The Examiner has rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mizumura, Vladimir, Ismail, and Tompkins (US
2009/0111065 Al, pub. Apr. 30, 2009). Answer 2.
2 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed November 8,
2016; the Reply Brief, filed March 6, 2017; the Final Office Action, mailed
June 24, 2016; and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed February 16, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-006172
Application 13/526,286
The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 4, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mizumura, Vladimir, Ismail, and Hardt (US
2007/0156361, pub. July 5, 2007). Answer 2.
The Examiner has rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mizumura, Vladimir, Ismail, and Richards (US
2003/0163296, pub. Aug. 28, 2003). Answer 2.
The Examiner has rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mizumura, Vladimir, Ismail, and Laughman (US
2012/0253543, pub. Oct. 4, 2012). Answer 2.
The Examiner has rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mizumura, Vladimir, Ismail, and Su (US 2012/0253490
Al, pub. Oct. 4, 2012). Answer 2.
The Examiner has rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mizumura, Vladimir, Ismail, and Stout (US 3,711,688,
iss. Jan. 16, 1973). Answer 2.
The Examiner has rejected claims 11, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mizumura, Vladimir, Ismail, and Landau (US
4,104,976, iss. Aug. 8, 1978). Answer 2.
The Examiner has rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mizumura, Scott (US 2012/0083925 Al, pub. Apr. 5,
2012), and Tompkins. Answer 2.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
3
Appeal 2017-006172
Application 13/526,286
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We disagree with
Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through
4, 6 through 12, and 14 through 17. However, we concur with Appellant
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18.
Independent Claim 1
Appellant asserts the rejection of independent claim 1 is in error as
Vladimir does not teach the limitation of representative claim 1 directed to a
cooling speed which has three steps between adjacent pair of speed values
(greater than zero) where the middle step has a smaller increment than the
other two steps. App. Br. 9-11. Specifically Appellant argues:
Table 1 of Vladimir provides four pairs of adjacent speed
values having steps therebetween. However, claims 1 and 16
recite that only speed values greater than zero are considered
(i.e., a “zero” speed is not one of the ‘adjacent speeds’ between
which are the ‘steps). The three remaining pairs of adjacent
speed values of Vladimir do not have steps therebetween as
recited in pending claims 1 and 16. The fan has a first step of
400 (from 800 to 1200), a second step of 1200 (from 1200 to
2400), and a third step of 1600 (from 2400 to 4000). These
three steps are sequentially increasing.
App. Br. 10.
Further, Appellant argues that adding Ismail to the teaching of
Vladimir changes Vladimir to have no zero speed and the 800 rpm speed as
the low idling speed. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments, finds that
Vladimir teaches 5 speeds, and when combined with Ismail, the lowest
speed would be a near-zero idling speed, replacing Vladimir’s zero speed.
Answer 4-5. Based upon this, the Examiner considers that the claim is met
4
Appeal 2017-006172
Application 13/526,286
by the first step of approximately 800 rpm (from near zero to 800 rpm), the
second step of 400 rpm (from 800 to 1200 rpm) and the third step of 1200
(from 1200 to 2400 rpm). Answer 5.
We concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion. Appellant’s
arguments are premised upon the combination of Ismail with Vladimir
removing the first speed range 0-800.3 Appellant has not addressed the
Examiner’s finding that, when combined, the lowest speed is a non-zero idle
speed below 800. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 6, 16, and 17
grouped with claim 1.
Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to dependent
claims 2 through 4, 7 through 12, 14, and 15. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons as claim 1.
Independent Claim 18
Appellant asserts the rejection of independent claim 18 is directed to
“having speed values that are more closely spaced within a range where
control of acoustic noise is desired” and that the combination of Scott,
Tompkins, and Mizumura do not teach this feature. App. Br. 12-13.
Appellant argues that Scott does not teach that noise can be controlled in a
3 We additionally note that Appellant’s arguments are premised on the
second step being between two speeds greater than used in the first step and
slower than the speeds in the third step (i.e. each of the steps being
sequential in speed), we do not find that the claims are so limited. As such,
Vladimir also meets the claim in that the step from 800 to 1200 rpm meets
the second step, and the step from 1200 to 2400 rpm and 2400 to 4000
would meet either of the first or second step.
5
Appeal 2017-006172
Application 13/526,286
speed range. App. Br. 13. Further, Appellant argues Tompkins teaches a
fan speed can be controlled over large or narrow speed ranges but does not
teach that in a narrow range, in which noise control is desired, the steps are
smaller than steps outside the narrow range. App. Br. 13-14.
The Examiner responds by finding that Scott teaches varying speed
and controlling speed to lower acoustic noise. Answer 6 (citing Scott, paras.
13, 59, 60). Further, the Examiner states that according to Appellant’s
Specification, noise reduction is an advantage, not a mandate. Id.
We agree with Appellant. Claim 18 recites a identifying a speed
range where it is desired to control acoustic noise and that the speed values
within the speed range are more closely spaced, such that the controller has a
finer control of speed within the identified range. Thus, a limitation directed
to a range of noise control is recited in claim 18, and required to be shown in
the art to maintain the rejection. We have reviewed the teachings of
Mizumura, Scott, and Tompkins, and while we disagree with Appellant’s
assertion that Scott does not teach that noise can be controlled in a speed
range, we agree that the combination of the references do not teach in a
range, where noise control is desired, the steps are smaller less than steps
outside noise control range.4 Thus, Appellant’s arguments directed to claim
18 have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18. We
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
4 Scott states in paragraph 85, “One or more particular rotational speeds (or
ranges of rotational speeds) of the AMDs [air moving devices, e.g. cooling
devices] 102 may be prohibited to the controller 104 under the low acoustic
noise profile.” Thus clearly identifying low noise speed ranges.
6
Appeal 2017-006172
Application 13/526,286
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 4, 6
through 12, and 14 through 17.
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7