Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

11701311 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WEI WEN CHEN and PETER C. ZWETKOF
____________

Appeal 2010-009005
Application 11/701,3111
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is a method and apparatus for ascertaining
interconnectivity in a network. A customer edge device is operated at a site
that is physically linked with at least one provider edge router and

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP.
Appeal 2010-009005
Application 11/701,311

2
communicates directly with peer sites via a virtual private network (VPN)
connection. Inter-site connectivity is discovered among a plurality of
consumer edge devices in the network (Spec. 2). The invention creates
corresponding VPN communication path connections among the plurality of
customer edge devices across geographically distributed sites (Spec. 4-5).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A network apparatus comprising:
a customer edge device comprising:
an interface configured for connecting to a network; and
a logic coupled to the interface that operates the customer edge device
at a site physically linked with at least one provider edge router and
communicates directly with peer sites via a virtual private network (VPN)
connection, discovers inter-site connectivity of establishing routing paths
among a plurality of customer edge devices in the network wherein the
routing paths are established using a predetermined routing protocol, and
creates corresponding VPN communication path connections among the
plurality of customer edge devices across geographically distributed sites.

REFERENCES
Hofer US 2007/0183404 A1 Aug. 9, 2007
Arquie US 2007/0214412 A1 Sep. 13, 2007
Vasseur US 2007/0217419 A1 Sep. 20, 2007
Cho US 2008/0002625 A1 Jan. 3, 2008

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Vasseur in view of Cho.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vasseur in view of Cho and Arquie.
Appeal 2010-009005
Application 11/701,311

3
Claims 5-7 and 14-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vasseur in view of Cho and Hofer.

ISSUE
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Vasseur teaches configuring VPNs
for multiple customer sites, but does not teach discovering inter-site
connectivity of routing paths established using a predetermined routing
protocol, and creating corresponding VPN communication path connections
(App. Br. 13). The Examiner finds that Vasseur teaches customer edge
“routers that communicate to each other via VPN” (Ans. 20).
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue:
Does Vasseur teach discovering inter-site connectivity of routing
paths established using a predetermined routing protocol, and creating
corresponding VPN communication path connections?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
Appeal 2010-009005
Application 11/701,311

4
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”).

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 8-13, AND 20
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Vasseur teaches
discovering inter-site connectivity of established routing paths among a
plurality of customer edge devices in a network, wherein the routing paths
are established using a predetermined routing protocol, and creating
corresponding VPN communication path connections among the plurality of
customer edge devices across geographically distributed sites, as recited in
independent claims 1, 8, and 20 (Ans. 4, 7, 11-12).
We do agree with the Examiner’s finding that Vasseur establishes
routing paths among the customer edge devices (¶¶ [0042], [0050], [0055]).
We note particularly the Examiner’s citation of discovery messages (¶
[0050]). However, we have reviewed Vasseur, and we agree with Appellants
that Vasseur fails to teach discovering connectivity and then creating
corresponding VPN communication path connections (App. Br. 12). The
Examiner’s response that Vasseur teaches customer edge routers that
communicate to each other via VPN (Ans. 20) fails to refute Appellant’s
argument.
Therefore, we find that the combination of Vasseur and Cho fails to
teach all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 20. We conclude that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 8-13, and 20 under § 103, and we
will not sustain the rejection.
Appeal 2010-009005
Application 11/701,311

5
CLAIMS 3, 5-7, AND 14-19
Each of these claims depends from independent claim 1 or 8. We have
reviewed Arquie and Hofer, and we find that they do not remedy the
deficiencies of Vasseur and Cho, articulated supra. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 3, 5-7, and 14-19, for the
reasons expressed with respect to claims 1 and 8.

CONCLUSION
Vasseur does not teach discovering inter-site connectivity of routing
paths established using a predetermined routing protocol, and creating
corresponding VPN communication path connections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc