Ex Parte Keesara et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201612907535 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/907,535 10/19/2010 136582 7590 09/21/2016 STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP Box AVAYA Inc. 7019 Corporate Way Dayton, OH 45459-4238 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Srikanth Keesara 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. 410186-US-NP/AVA233PA 2178 EXAMINER LAM, YEEF ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2016 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): pto@sspatlaw.com pair_avaya@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SRIKANTH KEESARA, SAKTHIV ADIVU SARA V ANARAJ, LIMING SUN, and XIAOLAN ZHOU1 Appeal2015-003583 Application 12/907,535 Technology Center 2400 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 4-17, and 19-23, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to dual homing to an access network to provide connectivity from multiple network switches. Spec. 1-2, Abstract. 1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Avaya Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2015-003583 Application 12/907,535 Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics): 1. A method of connecting a network switching device between a transport network and an access network, the access network for providing connectivity between the transport network and end stations coupled to the access network, compnsmg: identifying the transport network, the transport network configured to interconnect a plurality of access networks for internetwork traffic between the end stations connected to the access networks; identifying the switching device, the switching device coupled to the access network; defining a partner device, the partner device coupled to the access network; configuring a dynamic route between the switching device and an origin device in the transport network, the origin device also coupled to the partner device, the partner device sharing the dynamic route with the switching device; and maintaining connectivity, via the dynamic route, from the origin device to the access network via at least one of the switching device and the partner device, independently of failure of either the switching device or the partner device, or failure of a link to the switching device or the partner device; configuring a first static route to the access network between the switching device and the origin device; and configuring a second static route to the access network between the partner device and the origin device; and avoiding redundant routing entries to the access network through both the switching device and the partner device by maintaining separate entries for the first static route, the second static route and the dynamic route. REJECTION Claims 1, 4--17, and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sajassi et al. (US 2009/0144403 Al; published June 4, 2 Appeal2015-003583 Application 12/907,535 2009) ("Sajassi") and Allan et al. (US 2010/0103813 Al; published Apr. 29, 2010) ("Allan"). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief2, the Examiner's Answer, and the arguments in the Reply Brief. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions, and agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and conclusions of law to the extent they are consistent with our below analysis. Specific findings and arguments are highlighted and addressed below for emphasis. Appellants argue that Sajassi and Allan do not teach or suggest configuring a first static route to the access network between the switching device and the origin device; and configuring a second static route to the access network between the partner device and the origin device; and avoiding redundant routing entries to the access network through both the switching device and the partner device by maintaining separate entries for the first static route, the second static route and the dynamic route, as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 12-13. Appellants contend Sajassi fails to show first and second static routes along with a dynamic route, and separate entries are used for the first static route, the second static route and the dynamic route to avoid redundant routing entries. See id. at 13. Appellants further contend Allan fails to disclose a second static route between the partner device and the origin device, a static route between the switching device, the origin device and the partner device that is coupled to the origin device, and a separate entry for each of the three routes. See id. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error because Appellants' arguments address the teachings of Sajassi alone and Allan alone. One 2 Refers to the corrected Appeal Brief filed February 11, 2014. 3 Appeal2015-003583 Application 12/907,535 cannot show non-obviousness by analyzing a reference individually, as Appellants have done here, where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Sajassi and Allan to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. See Final Act. 4---6. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Sajassi for teaching configuring a standby route between the switching device (i.e., power edge bridging device 18) and an origin device (i.e., provider edge bridging device 28), the origin device also coupled to the partner device, the partner device sharing the standby route with the switching device; configuring a first active route between the switching device and the origin device, and configuring a second active route between the partner device (i.e., provider edge bridging device 20) and the origin device (see Final Act. 3--4 (citing Sajassi i-f 16, Figs. 1, 7) ), as modified by Allan's teachings of dynamic routes, static routes, and avoiding redundant routing entries through two devices by maintaining separate entries for the first static route, second static route and dynamic route (see Final Act. 5 (citing Allan i-fi-112, 17-19, 21-24)). We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the Sajassi and Allan reference[s] do not anticipate the claimed subject matter," addressing the Examiner's rejection based on obviousness. See App. Br. 15. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that Sajassi fails to show the origin device (28) is also coupled to the partner device (20) and wherein the partner device (20) shares the dynamic route with the switching device (18). See Reply Br. 3--4 (citing Ans. 17, 19). Appellants contend Figure 1 of Appellants' Specification depicts dynamic route 114 shared between BEB 130-1 and BEB 130-2, and the dynamic route extends to BEB 130-3. See Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend the configuration of Appellants' Figure 1 is 4 Appeal2015-003583 Application 12/907,535 not described or suggested by either Sajassi or Allan alone, or in combination. See id. at 3. Appellants' aforementioned arguments are presented for the first time in the Reply Brief and are not responsive to an argument raised for the first time in the Answer. The Examiner's mapping of the claimed origin device to Sajassi's provider edge bridging device 28, the claimed partner device to Sajassi's provider edge bridging device 20, and the claimed switching device to Sajassi's power edge bridging device 18, and finding that Sajassi teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations are consistent between the Final Action and the Answer. Compare Final Act. 3--4, with Ans. 15-19. Arguments raised for the first time in the Reply Brief are deemed waived and will not be considered by the Board without a showing of good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 14 73, 14 7 4 (BP AI 2010) (informative) ("[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not."). Appellants do not provide good cause for consideration of Appellants' belated arguments. See Reply Br. 2--4. For all of the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the rejection of claims 1, 4--17, and 19-23. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4--17, and 19-23 as unpatentable over Sajassi and Allan. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 4--17, and 19-23. 5 Appeal2015-003583 Application 12/907,535 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation