Ex Parte Goel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 2012

10824725 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2012)

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.
10/824,725 04/14/2004 Rajiv Goel 50325-0862 6713
29989 7590 02/17/2012
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG & BECKER, LLP
ONE ALMADEN BOULEVARD
FLOOR TWELVE
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2012 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 RAJIV GOEL, JIANYU CHEN,
SCOTT MOLLOY, CHUNG T. NGUYEN,
DAVID WARD, JOHN BETTINK, and
PERAMANAYAGAM MARIMUTHU

Appeal 2010-0012631
Application 10/824,725
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Cisco Systems, Inc. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2010-001263
Application 10/824,725

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 25-45 and 47-56. Claims 1-24, 46, and 57 have been
canceled. (App. Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for dynamically creating an
encapsulation chain (106) and a decapsulation chain (108) for a virtual
interface of a router’s card (102A). (Fig. 1A, Spec. 1, ¶ [0001].) In
particular, upon determining that the card contains a physical port
configured to send data packets of a type and destination that would be
produced by an encapsulation chain for the virtual interface, an
encapsulation chain is created on the card. (Fig. 3, elements 306, 310, Spec.
22, ¶¶ [0065, 0067].) Likewise, upon determining that the card contains a
physical port configured to receive data packets of the type and destination
that would be processed by a decpasulation chain for the virtual interface, a
decapsulation chain is created on the card. (Fig. 3 elements 313, 316, Spec.
23, ¶ [0068].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 25 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
25. A method of selectively creating chains for a virtual
interface, the method comprising the computer-implemented
steps of:
Appeal 2010-001263
Application 10/824,725

3
determining whether a new encapsulation chain should
be created, on a network element, for a particular virtual
interface by determining whether at least one physical port of a
particular card of the network element (a) is configured to
send data packets of a type that would be produced by an
encapsulation chain for the particular virtual interface and (b)
can send data packets toward a destination associated with the
particular virtual interface;

determining whether a new decapsulation chain should
be created, on the network element, for the particular virtual
interface by determining whether at least one physical port of a
particular card of the network element is configured to receive
data packets of a type that would be processed by a
decapsulation chain for the particular virtual interface;

in response to determining that a new encapsulation
chain should be created, on the network element, for the
particular virtual interface, creating, on the network
element, a new encapsulation chain for the particular virtual
interface; and

in response to determining that a new decapsulation
chain should be created, on the network element, for the
particular virtual interface, creating, on the network element, a
new decapsulation chain for the particular virtual interface.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Tuniman US 6,507,874 B1 Jan. 14, 2003
Conta US Patent Pub. App. No.: 2005/0086367 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
(Filed Oct. 20, 2003)
Singh US Patent Pub. App. No.: 2005/0108315 A1 May 19, 2005
(Filed Nov. 13, 2003)
Rejections on Appeal
Appeal 2010-001263
Application 10/824,725

4
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 25-30, 34, 36-41, 45, and 47-52 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination Conta and
Singh.
2. Claims 31-33, 35, 42-44, and 53-55 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Conta,
Singh, and Tuniman.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellant argues that the combination of Conta and Singh does not
teach or suggest determining whether an encapsulation/decapsulation chain
should be created by determining whether a physical port of a particular card
is configured to send/receive data packets of the type that would be
produced /processed by an encapsulation/decapsulation chain for the
particular virtual interface, as recited in independent claim 25. According to
Appellants, while Conta discloses an existing encapsulation engine and a
decapsulation engine, it does not teach or suggest making a determination of
whether such engines should be created. (App. Br. 9-13, Reply Br. 1-4.)
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
In response, the Examiner finds that Conta’s disclosure of an
encapsulation engine and a decapsulation engine inherently teaches creating
an encapsulation chain and a decapsulation chain. Therefore, the Examiner
finds that the proposed combination teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations as broadly claimed. (Ans. 7-12.)
Therefore, the pivotal issue before us is as follows:
Appeal 2010-001263
Application 10/824,725

5
II. ISSUE
Have Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Conta and Singh teaches or suggests determining whether an
encapsulation/decapsulation chain should be created by determining whether
a physical port of a particular card is configured to send/receive data packets
of the type that would be produced /processed by an
encapsulation/decapsulation chain for the particular virtual interface, as
recited in independent claim 25?
III. ANALYSIS
We find error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 25,
which recites, inter alia, determining whether an
encapsulation/decapsulation chain should be created by determining whether
a physical port of a particular card is configured to send/receive data packets
of the type that would be produced /processed by an
encapsulation/decapsulation chain for the particular virtual interface.
We note at the outset that Appellants do not appear to dispute the
Examiner’s finding that Conta’s disclosure of an encapsulation engine and
decpasulation engine does teach or suggest that an encapsulation chain and a
decapsulation chain were created at a certain point in time. (Ans. 8, App.
Br. 6.) However, Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the
creation of such chains teaches or suggests that a determination was made
therefor, as recited in the claim. Id. We agree with Appellants. We find that
while Conta’s disclosure does teach that such chains were created at a
certain point in time, they were not created as a result of having determined
Appeal 2010-001263
Application 10/824,725

6
that a packet is of a particular type to be produced/processed. Rather, as
pointed out by Appellants, they were created ahead of time for the purpose
of attaching a header to the packet, and for subsequently removing the
header therefrom. (Conta, ¶¶ [0055, 062, 063].) We therefore agree with
Appellants that proffered interpretation of Conta’s disclosure is
unreasonable, and does not teach the disputed limitations.
Because Appellants have shown at least one error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 25, and Singh does not cure the noted deficiencies, we
need not address Appellants’ other arguments. It follows that Appellants
have shown the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Conta
and Singh renders independent claim 25 unpatentable.
Since claims 25-45 and 47-56 also recite the disputed limitations of
claim 25, and the additional references do not cure the noted deficiencies,
we find that Appellants have also shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
those claims.
IV. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 25-45 and
47-56 as set forth above.
REVERSED

Vsh