Ex Parte De Silva et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2016

12036408 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/036,408 02/25/2008 Suran Saminda De Silva
96039 7590 03/09/2016
Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10143-108US1 1940
EXAMINER
YOUNG, STEVER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2016 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):
docketing@mcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SURAN SAMINDA DE SILVA and
CHANDRASHEKHAR APP ANNA
Appeal 2014-004136
Application 12/036,408
Technology Center 2400
Before DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-14, 16-19, and 21. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
WeAFFIRM. 3
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Cisco Technology, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
2 Claims 15 and 20 have been canceled and are not on appeal.
3 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed August 28, 2013
("Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed December 13, 2013 ("Ans."); and Final
Office Action mailed March 28, 2013 ("Final Act.").
Appeal 2014-004136
Application 12/036,408
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below (disputed limitations in italics):
1. A system, comprising:
a processor implemented application classifier
component that segments routable data traffic prior to bridging
layer 2 (L2) data traffic within a shared access virtual local area
network (VLAN) and facilitates delivery of the routable data
traffic to a plurality of application-specific layer 3 (L3) shadow
VLANs (SVLANs),
wherein the segmentation comprises determining that the
routable data traffic is to be delivered to a specific one or more
of the application-specific L3 SVLANs, based on an
application-specific tag embedded within the routable data
traffic, the tag indicating an application type to which the data
traffic is associated, and wherein the segmentation is performed
at an L2 level; and
a transmission component that delivers the segmented
data traffic to one or more application-specific L3 virtual
networks (vNETs) associated with the specific one or more of
the application-specific L3 SVLAN s, via one or more
application-specific switched virtual interfaces (SV!s)
associated with the specific one or more of the application-
specific L3 SVLANs.
References
Erb et al.
Magarasevic et al.
Ma
US 2003/0026271 Al
US 2004/0151290 Al
US 7,123,620 Bl
Feb. 6,2003
Aug. 5,2004
Oct. 17, 2006
July 19, 2007
Dec. 6, 2007
Dong
Wray et al.
US 2007/0165530 Al
US 2007 /0280243 Al
2
Appeal 2014-004136
Application 12/036,408
Examiner ;s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, and 4--11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dong, Erb, and Magarasevic. Final Act. 2-9.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dong, Erb, Magarasevic, and Ma. Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 12, 14, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dong, Erb, and Magarasevic. Final Act. 10-19.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dong, Erb, Magarasevic, and Ma. Final Act. 19-20.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dong, Erb, Magarasevic, and Wray. Final Act. 20-21.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (Br. 7-11 ). We are not persuaded by
Appellants' contentions. In so far as they relate to issues raised in this
appeal, we adopt as our own the Examiner's findings and we agree with the
Examiner's conclusions. See Final Act. 2-22; Ans. 22-25. We highlight
and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Dong, Erb, and Magarasevic teaches or suggests
a transmission component that delivers the segmented data
traffic to one or more application-specific L3 virtual networks
(vNETs) associated with the specific one or more of the
application-specific L3 SVLANs, via one or more application-
specific switched virtual inteifaces (SV!s) associated with the
specific one or more of the application-specific L3 SVLANs,
3
Appeal 2014-004136
Application 12/036,408
as recited in claim 1. Br. 7-10 (emphasis added).
First, with respect to Dong and Erb, Appellants argue these references
do not mention "switched virtual interfaces (SVIs )" and, therefore, do not
teach or suggest delivering traffic "via one or more application-specific
switched virtual interfaces (SVIs) associated with the specific one or more of
the application-specific L3 SVLANs." Br. 8-9. However, as noted by the
Examiner, Dong and Erb are not relied on for teaching "application-specific
switched virtual interfaces (SVIs)." Ans. 22. Rather, the Examiner relies on
Magarasevic for teaching "application-specific switched virtual interfaces
(SVIs)." Ans. 23-24; Final Act. 5-6.
With respect to Magarasevic, Appellants argue "there is absolutely no
reference whatsoever in any of the Background section, Summary section,
paragraph [0026] and paragraph [0114] ofMagarasevic to any 'switched
virtual interfaces (SVIs )', let alone 'one or more application-specific
switched virtual interfaces (SVIs) associated with the specific one or more of
the application-specific L3 SVLANs."' Br. 10.
For the reasons explained by the Examiner in the Answer, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument. Ans. 22-24. In particular, the
Examiner interprets a "switched virtual interface" to mean an "interface used
to route traffic to different virtual networks," and the Examiner finds that
"the term 'shadow VLAN' (SVLAN) has not been defined in a way in either
the specification or claims to differentiate its functionality as anything other
than simply an L3 VLAN." Ans. 24. In light of these interpretations, the
Examiner finds Magarasevic teaches "routing segregated application specific
data traffic to virtual LAN s via a virtual interface (since VLAN s can be
'application specific', the virtual interface to an application specific VLAN
4
Appeal 2014-004136
Application 12/036,408
(i.e. SVLAN) is an 'application-specific' virtual interface)." Ans. 24 (citing
Magarasevic Background, Summary, and i-fi-126, 114); see Magarasevic
i-f 114 ("VLAN s may be application specific, providing the ability to control
content, access, and the like.").
Appellants do not propose alternative claim interpretations or direct us
to persuasive evidence, such as definitions in the Specification of "switched
virtual interface" and "shadow VLAN," that persuade us of Examiner error.
Rather, the Examiner's explanation in the Answer is unrebutted. Therefore,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding the subject matter of
claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Dong, Erb, and
Magarasevic.
With respect to the remaining rejections, Appellants rely on
arguments made for claim 1 and do not advance additional persuasive
arguments for patentability. See Br. 10-11. As such, we also sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 2-14, 16-19, and 21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-14, 16-19, and
21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5