Ex Parte Assarpour et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 201713539216 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/539,216 06/29/2012 Hamid Assarpour 912014-US-NP/AVA218PA 7626 136582 7590 03/22/2017 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP Box AVAYA Inc. 7019 Corporate Way Dayton, OH 45459-4238 EXAMINER ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2017 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): pto @ sspatlaw. com pair_avaya@ firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAMID ASSARPOUR and SHAHAJI BHOSLE Appeal 2016-008054 Application 13/539,216 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—22, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the disclosed and claimed inventions relate to communication networks. See generally Spec. 1. Appeal 2016-008054 Application 13/539,216 Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for layer 2 forwarding of packets within a first node of a multi-node switch cluster, the method comprising the steps of: implementing a logical User to Network Interface (UNI) switch in the first node of the multi-node switch cluster to handle layer 2 forwarding of packets within the first node between UNI ports on the first node, the logical UNI switch including a plurality of UNI ports on the first node and no NNI ports on the first node; and implementing a logical Network to Network Interface (NNI) switch in the first node of the multi-node switch cluster to handle layer 2 forwarding of packets within the first node between NNI ports on the first node, the logical NNI switch including a plurality of NNI ports on the first node and no UNI ports on the first node; wherein the logical UNI switch and logical NNI switch are independently controlled switching processes within the first node, and wherein the logical UNI switch and logical NNI switch are configured to forward copies of packets to each other within the first node. References and Rejections Claims 1—22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osswald (US 8,213,300 Bl; iss. July 3, 2012) and Hogg (US 7,266,122 Bl; iss. Sep. 4, 2007). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’ contention the Examiner erred in finding Osswald teaches “implementing a logical Network to Network Interface (NNI) switch in the first node of the multi-node switch cluster . . . within the first node between NNI ports on the 2 Appeal 2016-008054 Application 13/539,216 first node, the logical NNI switch including a plurality of NNIports on the first node and no UNI ports on the first node,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added).1 See App. Br. 4—8. The Examiner cites Osswald’s column 2, lines 16—22 for teaching the italicized limitation. See Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 4. We have reviewed the cited Osswald portions, and they do not discuss a logical NNI switch, let alone “the logical NNI switch including a plurality of NNI ports on the first node and no UNI ports on the first node,” as required by the claim. Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited Osswald portions teach the disputed claim limitation. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Hogg do not remedy the deficiencies of Osswald. See Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 4. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—22, which depend from claim 1. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—22. REVERSED 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation