Ex Parte He

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 11, 2011

10222059 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 11, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte HAIXIANG HE
_____________

Appeal 2009-011336
Application 10/222,059
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CARLA M.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 22.
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed a method for exchanging routing
information between Virtual Private Network (VPN) sites. See Specification
3. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-011336
Application 10/222,059
2

1. A method of exchanging routing information between VPN
sites in a VPN, the method comprising the steps of:
establishing a first BGP peering session between a BGP router
reflector and a first BGP speaker on a first CE network device, the
first CE network device being associated with a first VPN site in a
first VPN;
establishing a second BGP peering session between the BGP
router reflector and a second BGP speaker on a second CE network
device, the second CE network device being associated with a second
VPN site in the first VPN;
receiving, by the BGP router reflector, first routing information
associated with the first VPN site in the first VPN over the first BGP
peering session from the first BGP speaker on the first CE network
device;
applying, by the BGP router reflector, VPN policy associated
with the first VPN to select second routing information for
transmission over the second BGP peering session to the second BGP
speaker on the second CE network device, said second routing
information including at least a portion of said first routing
information; and
transmitting the second routing information over the second
BGP peering session from the BGP router reflector to the second
BGP speaker on the second CE network device.

REFERENCES
Rekhter US 6,339,595 B1 Jan. 15, 2002
Yaseen US 2002/0184388 A1 Dec. 5, 2002

Appeal 2009-011336
Application 10/222,059
3

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rekhter in view of Yaseen.
Answer 4-20.1
ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 7 through 16 of the Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection based upon Rekhter in view of Yaseen is in error.2
These arguments present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding
the combination of references teaches first and second peering sessions
between a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Router Reflector (RR) and first
and second BGP speakers on Client Edge (CE) devices, as recited in
representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusion the Examiner erred in finding the combination of references
teach first and second peering sessions between a RR and first and second
BGP speakers on CE devices as recited in representative claim 1. We adopt
as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
November 3, 2008.
Appeal 2009-011336
Application 10/222,059
4

Appellant asserts representative claim 1 requires a direct
communication between the CE network elements and the RR (i.e., claim 1
requires a CE-RR-CE type connection). Brief 7, Reply Brief 1-2.
Appellant’s assertion is based upon interpreting the BGP peering session in
light of the discussion on page 6, line 24 through page 7, line 2 of the
Specification.3 Reply Brief 2. Using this interpretation, Appellant argues
the combination of the references does not teach the limitations of
representative claim 1.
The Examiner however, does not interpret claim 1 as requiring a
direct connection, but rather finds that the claim language is broad enough to
encompass a Provider Edge (PE) node between the CE node and the RR
node (i.e., the claim is broad enough to encompass a CE-PE-RR-PE-CE
connection). Answer 23-24. We concur with the Examiner and decline to
import into claim 1 limitations not recited in the claim. Further, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, on pages 8 through 16 of the Brief,
that Rekhter does not teach the claimed elements as the arguments are not
commensurate in scope with representative claim 1.
Appellant has not presented separate arguments directed to claims 2
through 4 and 6 through 22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated September 3,
2008 and the Reply Brief dated January 2, 2009.
3 We note this passage of the Specification does not state the connection is
direct.
Appeal 2009-011336
Application 10/222,059
5

The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 4 and 6
through 22 is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

tj