Ex Parte Modica - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2005-2569                                                                                     
             Application No. 10/200,828                                                                               


                                                  BACKGROUND                                                          
                    Appellant's invention relates to an external fan and method for exchanging air                    
             with modular bricks in a computer system.  An understanding of the invention can be                      
             derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.                                  


                    1.     A modular computing system comprising:                                                     
                           an enclosure;                                                                              
                           a rack mounted inside the enclosure;                                                       
                           a modular brick that includes electronic components, the modular brick                     
                    being supported by the rack; and                                                                  
                           a primary fan outside the enclosure, the primary fan exchanging air with                   
                    the modular brick to cool the electronic components in the modular brick.                         
                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                   
             appealed claims are:                                                                                     
             Bishop et al. (Bishop)             6,535,382                          Mar. 18, 2003                      
                                                                     (Filed Apr. 12, 2001)                            
             Benavides                          6,185,098                          Feb. 6, 2001                       
                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
             appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer                          
             (mailed Nov. 29, 2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to                 
             the brief (filed Sep. 24, 2004) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                  


                                                          2                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007