10174262 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2011)

Ex Parte Jacobson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 20, 2011

10174262 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2011)

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. 10/174,262 06/18/2002 Van Jacobson 1322 6703 30748 7590 09/21/2011 INNOVATION PARTNERS 540 UNIVERSITY AVE. SUITE 300 PALO ALTO, CA 94301 EXAMINER CALDWELL, ANDREW T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2445 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2011 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 VAN JACOBSON, HAOBO YU, and CENGIZ ALAETTINOGLU ____________ Appeal 2009-014257 Application 10/174,262 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014257 Application 10/174,262 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Disclosed Invention1 The disclosed invention includes a method and system for communicating between interconnected autonomous systems (AS). (Spec. 6:8-11.) The system and method alters the information in the primary AS to appear to have a topology and connectivity with a target AS, that is different from the actual topology of the AS and its connectivity with the target AS. To alter the topology information, a “virtual node” is created by providing IGP information about a device that does not actually exist in the network. The IGP information about the virtual node is provided to make the virtual node appear to be connected to all of the edge routers in the primary AS that advertise themselves via (I)BGP information a being able to reach the target AS. (Spec. 6:16-7:3.) Exemplary claim 1 follows: 1. A method of providing information to a first portion of a network, the method comprising: receiving a first set of information from a plurality of routers at the edge of the first portion of the network, the first set of information comprising, for each of such plurality of routers at the edge of the first portion of the network, a plurality 1 The ensuing description constitutes findings of fact designated as FF 0. Appeal 2009-014257 Application 10/174,262 3 of ranges of addresses associated with said plurality of routers at the edge of the first portion of the network; and providing, to a plurality of routers not on the edge of the first portion of the network, information regarding a virtual node that does not physically exist on the network, the information regarding the virtual node comprising an address and connectivity information identifying said virtual node as begin coupled to a plurality of the plurality of routers at the edge of the first portion of the network and associated with a designated at least one of the plurality of ranges of addresses. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, and 15 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Feldman (NetScope: Traffic Engineering for IP Networks, IEEE Network (Mar/Apr 2000)) and Rekhter (U.S. Patent 6,399,595 B1). (Ans. 3-6.) ISSUE Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner establish that Rekhter teaches “providing, to a plurality of routers not on the edge of the first portion of the network, information regarding a virtual node that does not physically exist on the network,” as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in claims 8 and 15? Appeal 2009-014257 Application 10/174,262 4 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Rekhter 1. Rekhter discloses a method for a Service Provider (SP) to provide communication services to customers using a peer model that enables transit P-routers (i.e., a router in a SP network that is not an edge router) “to base their routing decisions for VPN-destined packets on packet fields that the transit routers interpret without reliance on VPN-specific routing information.” (3:62-65.) The PE-routers (i.e., edge routers in an SP network) provide packets with an internal-routing field to relieve the transit P-routers of the need to maintain tables of VPN-specific information. (4:34- 44.) 2. A Virtual Private Network (VPN) is called “virtual” because the circuit connecting the routers in the network is “virtual” (e.g., a frame-relay or ATM network rather than a circuit-switched network.) (1:58-5:7.) ANALYSIS Issue - Claims 1, 8, and 15 Appellants assert that Rekhter fails to teach the claim limitation of “providing , to a plurality of routers not on the edge of the first portion of the network, information regarding a virtual node that does not physically exist on the network.” (App. Br. 8-9.) We agree. The Examiner found that Virtual Private Network A (VPN A) of the system of Rekhter illustrated in Figure 9 is the claimed “virtual node.” (Ans. 6.) As explained by Appellants, however, there is no indication in Rekhter that VPN A is a virtual node that does not physically exist. (Reply Br. 2-4.) Indeed, a virtual private network (VPN) is called “virtual” not because it Appeal 2009-014257 Application 10/174,262 5 contains a virtual node but because the circuit connecting the routers in the VPN is “virtual” (e.g., a frame-relay or ATM network rather than a circuit- switched network.) (Reply Br. 3; accord FF 2.) Moreover, Rekhter’s system does not even provide information on the virtual private network to a router that is not on the edge of the network. (Reply Br. 6; accord FF 1.) Indeed, the SP routers at the edge of the network provide packets with an internal-routing field to relieve the transit P-routers of the need to maintain tables of VPN-specific information. (FF 2.) Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 8, and 15. REVERSED msc