Ex Parte Kancherla

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 9, 2019

13899849 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/899,849 05/22/2013
157376 7590 05/13/2019
Xsensus/Broadcom
200 Daingerfield Road, Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mani Prasad Kancherla
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.
11280US02 8314
EXAMINER
HARRELL, ROBERT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2019 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):
Faith.Baggett@Xsensus.com
Arlene.Hudgens@Xsensus.com
anaquadocketing@xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANI PRASAD KANCHERLA
Appeal2018-000521
Application 13/899,849
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-23, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000521
Application 13/899,849
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant generally describes the disclosed and claimed invention as
follows:
One embodiment of the present invention provides a
computing system. The computing system includes a processor
and a computer-readable storage medium for storing
instructions. Based on the instructions, the processor operates
the computing system as an overlay gateway. The computing
system initiates and terminates an overlay tunnel associated with
a virtual machine. During operation, the computing system maps
a virtual Internet Protocol (IP) address of the virtual machine to
a second IP address used to terminate the overlay tunnel based
on information received from a configuration system. The
computing system then determines an output port for a data
packet based on the second IP address. The data packet
comprises an inner packet and the destination address of this
inner packet corresponds to the virtual IP address.
Abstract.2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as
follows (with the disputed limitation emphasized):
1. A computing system, comprising:
a processor;
forwarding circuitry;
a storage device;
a plurality of ports;
a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions
which when executed by the processor causes the processor to
perform a method, the method comprising:
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Dec. 1, 2016 ("Final
Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed May 1, 2017 ("App. Br.") and Reply
Brief filed Oct. 19, 2017 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Sept.
7, 2017 ("Ans."); and the original Specification filed May 22, 2013
("Spec.").
2
Appeal2018-000521
Application 13/899,849
storing, in the storage device, a mapping between a
virtual Internet Protocol (IP) address of a virtual machine and
a tunnel IP address assigned to a virtual tunnel endpoint of an
overlay tunnel; and
in response to identifying the virtual IP address as a
destination address of a header of a packet, causing the
forwarding circuitry to:
encapsulate the packet with an encapsulation
header associated with the overlay tunnel, wherein the tunnel IP
address is a destination address of the encapsulation header; and
determine an output port, from the plurality of ports, for
the encapsulated packet based on the tunnel IP address.
App. Br. 25 (Claims App'x).
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Nomura et al. (US 2007/0081530 Al; published Apr. 12,
2017) ("Nomura"). See Final Act. 2-4.
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by Appellant's arguments in the Briefs is
whether Nomura teaches "storing, in the storage device, a mapping between
a virtual Internet Protocol (IP) address of a virtual machine and a tunnel IP
address assigned to a virtual tunnel endpoint of an overlay tunnel," as recited
in claim 1, and recited commensurately in claims 12 and 23. 3
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Figure 8 (item
210) and paragraphs 156-161 of Nomura disclose this limitation. Final
Act. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds as follows (with the claim language
3 Although Appellant raises other issues in the Briefs, we do not address
them because our decision on this issue is dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal2018-000521
Application 13/899,849
italicized and the cited portion of Nomura in parenthesis):
Id.
storing, in the storage device (e.g., see figure 8 (210)), a mapping
between a virtual Internet Protocol (IP) address of a virtual
machine (e.g., see figure 8 (210 (right)) and a tunnel IP address
(Counter GW (see paragraph [0161]) and Assigned G (see
paragraph 0157 "addresses of the gateways"])) assigned to a
virtual tunnel endpoint of an overlay tunnel ( e.g., see paragraph
[0156]-et seq.).
The Examiner also finds:
The counter GW and an assigned G address of Nomura is
equivalent to a tunnel IP address since each GW was assigned an
IP address and was part of a tunnel per (e.g., see figure 8 (210
(right)), (Counter GW (see paragraph [0142] to paragraph
[0161]) and Assigned G (see paragraph [0157] "addresses of the
gateways"])).
Id. 4. In the Answer, the Examiner makes the same findings above with
respect to the disputed limitation of claim 1. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner also
makes the following findings:
Nomura, taught storing, in the storage device, a mapping
between a virtual Internet Protocol (IP) address (e.g., see figure
7 (lower center "10.10.10.102)) of a virtual machine (e.g., see
figure 7 (lower center "V-VCR" { note the equal sign})) and a
tunnel IP address (e.g., see paragraph [0145 "PPP over SSH"
"encrypted"], paragraph [O 159 "encryption" "encapsulated"],
since IP tunnels use IP addressing, assigned to a virtual tunnel
endpoint (e.g., see figure 7 (lower center (S304) right side of
arrow; of an overlay tunnel ( e.g., see figure 7 (lower center ( the
arrows as labeled S304 and return/reversed arrow there under)).
Id. at 7.
Appellant argues that Nomura does not disclose the disputed
limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 6-7. In particular,
Appellant contends the portions of Nomura cited by the Examiner do not
4
Appeal2018-000521
Application 13/899,849
disclose ( 1) "a virtual Internet Protocol (IP) address of a virtual machine,"
(2) "a tunnel IP address assigned to a virtual tunnel endpoint of an overlay
tunnel," and (3) "storing, in the storage device, a mapping" between them.
Reply Br. 7. Appellant argues that the virtual IP address depicted in item
210 in Figure 8 of Nomura is merely a local address, such as 10.10.10.102,
which is assigned to a host machine hosting a video in a local network. App.
Br. 10 (citing Nomura ,i 141). Thus, Appellant argues that the Examiner has
not shown that the virtual address in Figure 8 is "a virtual IP address of a
virtual machine." Id. (emphasis omitted). Regarding Figure 7 ofNomura,
Appellant argues "that a virtual IP address of Nomura is a virtual NAT
address ... , which is not the same as 'a virtual Internet Protocol (IP) address
of a virtual machine."' Reply Br. 8 (citing Nomura ,i,i 1334, 182) (emphasis
omitted).
Appellant also argues the combination of a counter GW and an
assigned G of Nomura is not the same as or equivalent to "a tunnel IP
address assigned to a virtual tunnel endpoint of an overlay tunnel," as the
Examiner finds. Id. at 11. Instead, according to Appellant, "an assigned G
ofNomura is merely a group of hosts," and the combination of "counter
GW" and "Assigned G" of Nomura cannot operate as an address in an IP
network (e.g., with the Internet Protocol)." Id. (citing Nomura Fig. 8, ,i,i 36,
153). Appellant further argues that the Local List shown in Figure 8 of
4 Paragraph 133 of Nomura discloses that "a NAT (Network Address
Translation) function of converting a virtual IP address and an actual IP
address into each other during communications by 1. uniquely assigning
each group with an arbitrary virtual private network address, and 2.
assigning each group member with the virtual IP address belonging to the
assigned network address."
5
Appeal2018-000521
Application 13/899,849
Nomura does not disclose "a tunnel IP address assigned to a virtual tunnel
endpoint in an overlay tunnel," nor does Nomura disclose "mapping between
a virtual Internet Protocol (IP) address of a virtual machine and a tunnel IP
address assigned to a virtual tunnel endpoint of an overlay tunnel." Id. at 11;
Reply Br. 7. With respect to Figure 7 of Nomura, Appellant argues the
Examiner has not shown "storing, in the storage device, a mapping"
between the cited NAT address and an IP address allocated to a tunnel
endpoint of the cited tunnel. Reply Br. 9.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred.
"'A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every
limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference."' See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Here, we
are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred in finding
Nomura anticipates claim 1 because the Examiner has not persuasively
shown or explained how the cited portions of Nomura disclose, either
expressly or inherently, (1) "a virtual Internet Protocol (IP) address of a
virtual machine," (2) "a tunnel IP address assigned to a virtual tunnel
endpoint of an overlay tunnel," and (3) "storing, in the storage device, a
mapping" between them.
Moreover, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the
mapping of Figure 8 of Nomura "merely teaches a number of a tunnel, such
as an index," and regardless of whether a gateway is associated with an IP
address, the mapping taught by Figure 8 of Nomura "does not include a
tunnel endpoint's IP address." Reply Br. 7. Similarly, we are persuaded by
Appellant's argument that Figure 7 of Nomura does not disclose storing, in
6
Appeal2018-000521
Application 13/899,849
the storage device, a mapping between the cited NAT address and an IP
address allocated to a tunnel endpoint of the cited tunnel. Reply Br. 9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1,
independent claims 12 and 23, as well as dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22,
for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b ).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
REVERSED
7