Ex Parte Fiorone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13139454 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/139,454 08/26/2011 Raoul Fiorone
113648 7590 09/26/2016
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404-7999
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.
0110-719/P25854 USl 1608
EXAMINER
0 CONNOR, BRIANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAOUL FIORONE and RICARDO MARTINOTTI
Appeal2014-009984
Application 13/139,454
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-10 and 12-14. Claim 11 has been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "method and apparatus for
transferring data packets between a first network and a second network."
Spec. p. 1, 11. 6-7. More specifically, the invention is directed to a particular
node arrangement including at least two primary nodes that each use inter-
node ports to connect to each other and each use second ports to connect to a
secondary node coupled to the second network. The second ports are
Appeal2014-009984
Application 13/139,454
arranged into respective link aggregation groups. The method comprises the
step of switching a packet to the second network using the respective second
ports or to the other primary node using the inter-node port dependent on an
identified service identifier associated with said packet. Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of transferring data packets between a
first network and a second network using a node
arrangement having at least two primary nodes connected
to the second network, each primary node being connected
to the first network using a respective first port and to a
secondary node coupled to the second network using
respective second ports arranged into respective link
aggregation groups, the primary nodes connected by
respective inter-node ports, the method comprising:
determining a service identifier associated with a
packet received at a said primary node from the first
network; and
switching the packet to the second network using
the respective second ports or to the other primary node
using the inter=node port dependent on a ser\rice identifier
associated with said packet.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Parry et al. (US 7,697,528 B2, pub. Apr. 13,
2010). Final Act. 2---6. 1
1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to ( 1) the Final Action, mailed June
27, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Feb 25, 2014 ("App.
Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed July 17, 2014 ("Ans."); and (4) the
Reply Brief filed Sept. 15, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2014-009984
Application 13/139,454
The Examiner rejected claims 2-5, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Parry and Kuo et al. (US 7,209,435 Bl; pub. Apr. 24,
2007). Final Act. 6-11.
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION BASED ON PARRY
Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 12-14
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 12-14 as anticipated by Parry.
Appellants contend that Parry lacks the recited secondary node,
respective second ports and inter-node ports of independent claims 1, 6, and
10. App. Br. 9-11. Appellants explain that while the Examiner identified
node 24a as a secondary node, the Examiner fails to explain how the primary
node 22 is coupled to the secondary node in accordance with the recited
limitations. App. Br. 9. Further,
If, indeed, the dotted line connections between nodes 24a and 28
constitute "intemode ports", then such "inter-node ports" do not
fulfill the requirements of Appellant's claim language, since they
do not connect the primary nodes (node 24a was specifically
identified as a secondary node).
App. Br. 11.
Additionally, Appellant contends that in Parry does not perform the
recited step of "switching the packet to the second network using the
respective second ports or to the other primary node using the inter-node
port dependent on a service identifier associated with said packet" because
Parry does not include an inter-node port. App. Br. 11-12. See also App.
Br. 13 ("It is clear [] that the path which is taken by any given data packet is
3
Appeal2014-009984
Application 13/139,454
not determined based on the service identifier associated with the packet.");
Reply Br. 5.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Namely, the Examiner
fails to sufficiently explain how Parry teaches each limitation of claims 1, 6,
and 10. For example, the Examiner inconsistently finds that node 24a is
both a primary node as well as a secondary node and does not identify how
Parry satisfies the claimed connections between the primary nodes and
between the primary nodes and the secondary node. See, e.g., Ans. 3. In
order for us to sustain the Examiner's rejection here, we would need to
resort to impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales
to supply deficiencies in the factual bases of the rejection before us. In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Similarly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not
sufficiently explain how Parry teaches "switching the packet to the second
network using the respective second ports or to the other primary node using
the inter-node port dependent on a service identifier associated with said
packet." While Parry describes using a service ID (I-SID) associated with a
frame to allocate the frame to a port in the Link Aggregation Group, each
port results in the same destination. In other words, Parry does not switch a
frame to either the secondary node or the other primary node based on a
service identifier, as required by the claim. See, e.g., Fig. 5.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,
6, 10, as well as dependent claims 9 and 12-14, as anticipated by Parry.
4
Appeal2014-009984
Application 13/139,454
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON p ARRY AND Kuo
Claims 2-5, 7, and 8
Each of claims 2-5, 7, and 8 depend from directly or indirectly from
claim 1 or 6. As discussed above, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claims 1 and 6. Kuo does not cure the deficiencies
of Parry. As such, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-5, 7, and
8 as unpatentable over the combination of Parry and Kuo.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 and 12-14.
REVERSED
5