Cooler Master Co Ltd v. Aavid Thermalloy LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00337
• Patent #: 7,066,240
• Filed: November 14, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Cooler Master Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Aavid Thermalloy LLC.
• Challenged Claims: 9-13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Integrated Circuit Heat Pipe Heat Spreader with Through Mounting Holes
• Brief Description: The ’240 patent describes heat pipes, also known as vapor chambers, that incorporate through-holes for mounting fasteners directly in the interior region of the device. The invention discloses techniques, such as using hollow columns or depressions, to create these mounting holes without compromising the sealed integrity of the internal vapor chamber.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Morikawa - Claims 9, 10, and 12 are obvious over Morikawa.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Morikawa (Japanese Examined Utility Model Application Publication No. S53-32387 Y).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Morikawa, which discloses a panel-type heat pipe, teaches every element of independent claims 9 and 12. Morikawa’s airtight “enclosure” formed by two plates was asserted to be the claimed “boundary structure” defining a “vapor chamber.” Petitioner mapped Morikawa’s “metal pipe 11,” which passes through the enclosure, to the claimed “hollow column.” This metal pipe is bonded to the plates, has open ends, and forms a “through path” for mounting bolts, thereby creating a mounting hole isolated from the vapor chamber as required by the claims. Dependent claim 10 was also allegedly met, as Morikawa explicitly discloses a wick on the interior surfaces.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Morikawa in view of Nakamura - Claims 9 and 10 are obvious over Morikawa in view of Nakamura.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Morikawa, and Nakamura (Japanese Unexamined Utility Model Application Publication No. S50-55262).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Morikawa teaches the basic heat pipe structure, and Nakamura teaches an obvious alternative for the claimed “hollow column.” Specifically, Nakamura’s integrally formed “concavities” were presented as a known, alternative structure for creating an isolated mounting hole.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to combine the references because both concern heat pipes with through-holes and are analogous art. More specifically, Nakamura explicitly identifies Morikawa’s application by its filing number, describes the manufacturing difficulties of joining Morikawa’s separate metal pipe to the heat pipe wall, and proposes its concavity-based design as a solution to these very problems. This provided a direct and explicit reason for a POSITA to modify Morikawa’s design with Nakamura’s teachings.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining the teachings, as it involved substituting one known mounting hole structure for another to resolve a known manufacturing issue.

Ground 3: Obviousness over multiple references - Claims 11 and 13 are obvious over Morikawa in view of Takahashi and further in view of Nakamura.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Morikawa, Nakamura, and Takahashi (Japanese Examined Utility Model Application Publication No. H8-10205).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged claims 11 and 13, which add limitations related to a “peripheral lip” for sealing the plates and forming the mounting hole via a “depression.” Petitioner argued that Morikawa provides the foundational heat pipe, but its method of sealing the plates at their edges is difficult to manufacture. Takahashi was introduced to teach an improved, obvious alternative for the “peripheral lip” by using outwardly protruding flanges that are easily bonded via pressing or brazing. Nakamura was added to teach the use of an integral “depression” (its “concavity”) to form the mounting hole, as an alternative to Morikawa’s separate column.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Morikawa with Takahashi to improve the manufacturability of the peripheral seal, a known design challenge. A POSITA would further incorporate Nakamura’s depression feature as a known method for creating mounting holes, which Nakamura itself presents as an improvement over the method taught in Morikawa. The combination represented the application of known solutions from analogous art to solve known problems in the primary reference.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be predictable, as the combination involved substituting well-known structural elements (edge seals, mounting hole formations) using standard manufacturing techniques to achieve improved manufacturability.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 12 over Morikawa in view of Takahashi, relying on a similar design modification theory for the claimed peripheral lip feature.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• “Hollow Column”: Petitioner proposed the construction “cylindrical structure surrounding a void or cavity.” This construction was argued to be broad enough to encompass not only separate tubes like those in Morikawa but also integrally formed structures like the “concavities” disclosed in Nakamura.
• “Lip”: Petitioner proposed the construction “portion of the plate comprising a region bonded to another plate.” This construction was central to the argument that Takahashi’s outwardly protruding flanges, used for sealing the heat pipe, met the “lip” limitation of the challenged claims.
• “Vapor Chamber”: Petitioner proposed a construction of an “enclosed and hermetically sealed void or cavity” containing a working fluid. Petitioner argued that the prior art met this limitation and also satisfied the Patent Owner’s narrower construction, which required the use of capillary forces.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate. It was asserted that none of the prior art references relied upon in the petition were cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’240 patent. Furthermore, Petitioner contended that the present petition was substantially different from a previously filed petition (IPR2019-00144) because it relies on a new primary reference, Morikawa, and asserts different grounds of unpatentability.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 9-13 of Patent 7,066,240 as unpatentable.