Ex Parte Blaker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 29, 2011

09999647 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 29, 2011)

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.
09/999,647 10/30/2001 David M. Blaker 9387-8 8155
20792 7590 12/30/2011
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
NGO, NGUYEN HOANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID M. BLAKER and RAYMOND SAVARDA
____________

Appeal 2009-015004
Application 09/999,647
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-015004
Application 09/999,647

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 7, 14-18, 20, 21, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 40-44, and 47-50. Appeal
Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We reverse.

Claims
There are seven independent claims: 1, 20, 28, and 47-50. Claim 1 is
exemplary:
1. A method of transformation processing packets, comprising:
receiving packets;
assigning a sequence identifier to the packets, wherein the sequence
identifier specifies a serial order associated with the packet;
providing the packets to a plurality of parallel packet transform processors;
processing the packets utilizing the packet transform processors so as to
provide processed packets that have been transformed; and
ordering the processed packets based on the sequence identifier of the
packets.

Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1-3, 7, 14-18, 28, 29, 40-44, 47, and 49 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Brewer (U.S. Patent Number
6,876,657 B1; April 5, 2005). Answer 3-11.
2. Claims 20, 21, 26, 31, 34, 48, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brewer and Sugai (U.S. Patent
Application Publication Number 2002/0027917 A1; March 7, 2002).
Answer 12-17.

Appeal 2009-015004
Application 09/999,647

3
Issues
Do the independent claims recite limitations that packets are
processed utilizing package transform processors so as to provide processed
packets that have been transformed?
Does Brewer disclose packet forwarding engines that constitute a
plurality of parallel packet transform processors?

ANALYSIS
The claimed invention relates to cryptographic processing using
parallel cryptographic processors. See generally Specification 1.

35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
Appellants argue that the claim 1 limitations “providing the packets to
a plurality of parallel packet transform processors; processing the packets
utilizing the packet transform processors so as to provide processed packets
that have been transformed” require that one or more of a plurality of
parallel packet transform processors are used to transform the packet(s) as
part of processing the packet(s). Appeal Brief 8. Appellants point out that
independent claims 28, 47 and 49 include similar recitations. Id.
The Examiner finds that the features upon which Appellants rely (i.e.
plurality of parallel packet transform processors are used to transform the
packets as part of processing the packets) are not recited in the rejected
claims. Answer 18. The Examiner states that nowhere in claim 1 does it
state that transformation is done in the packet transform processors. Id. The
Examiner concludes that, “Claim 1 simply states processing the packets
utilizing the packet transform processors (forwarding engines) so as to
Appeal 2009-015004
Application 09/999,647

4
provide processed packets (processing of packets by the multiple forwarding
engines) that have been transformed (prepending sequence numbers to each
packet, col. 3 lines 26-27).” Id.
Appellants disagree because
the independent claims clearly state that the plurality of packet
transform processors are used to process packets so as to
provide processed packets that have been transformed. The
phrase “so as to” means that the packets have been transformed
as a result of the processing performed by one or more of the
plurality of packet transform processors.
Appeal Brief 9.
We find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. There is no apparent
basis for the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language because
Appellants have stressed, and we agree, that the claim language is straight
forward and does not lend credence to the Examiner’s position or
interpretation.
Appellants argue that Brewer’s processing block 101 and packet
forwarding engine #0, including the exception processing element 104, are
not connected to each other in parallel, but instead connected in series. Id.
Appellants further argue:
The packet forwarding engines 13-0 through 13-3 are connected
in parallel to each other, but only the exception processing
element 104 of packet forwarding engine 13-0 is alleged to
perform any type of packet transformation (Brewer, col. 7, lines
17 - 24). The remaining packet forwarding engines 13-1
through 13-3 shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 of Brewer do not
transform the packets that they process in any way, but merely
forward packets to various output links 127. (Brewer, col. 3,
line 38 - col. 4, line 7). Accordingly, the packet forwarding
engines 13-0 through 13-3 do not constitute a plurality of
parallel packet transform processors as only one of the packet
forwarding engines performs packet transformation operations.
Appeal 2009-015004
Application 09/999,647

5
Id. The Examiner finds:
Brewer discloses that all exception packets exit packet
forwarding engines 13-0 through 13-3 through wide output port
114 (col. 5 lines 40-60), and further states that exception
packets flowing though the forwarding engines (13-0 through
13-3) do not follow a conventional fast path, but processed off-
line and that these exception packets are marked, such that after
they exit the forwarding engines, they are ordered among
themselves and that all exception packets are ordered across all
multiple forwarding engines (abstract). Thus Examiner
interprets this to correlate to a plurality of parallel packet
transform processors (forwarding engines), which perform
packet transformation operations. It is further seen from figure
1 that the exception processing block (104) is connected to each
packet forwarding engine (13-1 through 13-3) through link 125.
With respect to (1), the Examiner may also interpret the
combination of processing block (101 and 103-0) and the
packet forwarding engine #0 to constitute one parallel transform
processor (as seen in figure 1), processing block (101 and 103-
1) and the packet forwarding engine #1 to constitute another
parallel transform processor, and so on.
Answer 19.
However, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation is
incorrect:
Appellants respectfully submit that this is an improper
interpretation of the term “parallel.” As the processing block
101 is a common element with respect to the pairs of processing
block 101 with forwarding engine 13-0, processing block 101
with forwarding engine 13-1, etc., these pairings cannot
constitute a plurality of parallel transform processors because
the processing block 101 cannot be in “parallel” with itself.
Appellants further submit that the only modules of Brewer that
are described as performing any packet transformation are
processing block 101 and exception processing element 104,
which are clearly configured in series with each other as shown
in FIG. 1 of Brewer.
Appeal 2009-015004
Application 09/999,647

6
Reply Brief 2-3.
We find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive for the same reasons
as stated by Appellants. The Examiner’s interpretation is not on the same
accord with Brewer’s disclosure. See Figure 1; see also column 3, line 38 –
column 4, line 18). Therefore we will not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 1. We will also not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claims 28, 47, and 49 for the same
reasons stated above because each claim recites limitations similar to the one
recited in claim 1 wherein one or more of a plurality of parallel packet
transform processors are used to transform the packet(s) as part of
processing the packet(s). See Appeal Brief 8. Also, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 14-18, 29, and 40-44
which are ultimately dependent upon independent claims 1, 28, 47, and 49
for the same reasons above.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
Appellants argue independent claims 20, 48, and 50 are patentable
over the obviousness rejection based upon Brewer and Sugai because the
independent claims include recitations similar to those related to a plurality
of parallel packet transform processors being used to transform packet(s) as
part of processing the packet(s). See Appeal Brief 10. Appellants further
argue that Sugai does not provide teachings that are missing from Brewer; in
other words, Sugai does not address the deficiencies of Brewer. Id.
Appellants conclude that for the same reasons as discussed above, in regard
to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection, the obviousness rejection should be
reversed. Id.
Appeal 2009-015004
Application 09/999,647

7
The Examiner does not address the merits of the obviousness and
anticipation rejections separately but chose to address the rejections in one
homogenous response. See Answer 18-19. Therefore we find Appellants’
arguments to be persuasive for the same reasons stated above and therefore
we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claims 20, 48, and 50 as well as claims 21, 26, 31, and 34 which ultimately
depend upon claim 20.

DECISION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 7, 14-18, 28, 29, 40-44,
47, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20, 21, 26, 31, 34, 48, and 50
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

babc