Ex Parte Khalid et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2014

11409586 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2014)

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.
11/409,586 04/24/2006 Mohamed Khalid 50325-1645 3010
29989 7590 09/18/2014
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP
1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD
FLOOR 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
TO, BAOTRAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2435
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MOHAMED KHALID, RAJIV ASATI, VIJAY
BOLLAPRAGADA, and SUNIL CHERUKURI
____________

Appeal 2012-005176
Application 11/409,586
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–23, which are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 24 and 25 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We Affirm.

Appeal 2012-005176
Application 11/409,586

2
Invention
The claimed invention on appeal is directed to:
An edge router (disposed between a packet-switched
network and a label switching network) is configured to receive
an [Internet Key Exchange] IKE message originating from a
client on the Internet (e.g., packet-switched network) attempting
to set up a tunnel. Upon receipt of the IKE message, the edge
router utilizes a unique identifier in the IKE message to identify
a virtual private network in the label-switching network. In lieu
of terminating an IPSec tunnel at the edge router and
performing a respective key exchange with the client, the edge
router identifies a corresponding forwarding table associated
with the virtual private network (identified by the unique
identifier in the IKE message) and, based on the corresponding
forwarding table, forwards the IKE message to a destination
reachable via the label-switching network. The destination (e.g.,
a key server in a corresponding VPN) communicates with the
client through the edge router to set up the tunnel.
(Abstract).
Representative Claim
1. A method comprising:

receiving an initiating key exchange request message originating from
a source node in a first type of network, the key exchange request message
comprising a unique identifier of a virtual private network and a request to
create a secured connection with a destination in a second type of network
using encryption keys;

in response to receiving the key exchange request message, utilizing
the unique identifier of the virtual private network in the key exchange
request message to identify the virtual private network associated with the
second type of network;

wherein the virtual private network comprises a plurality of
destinations; and
Appeal 2012-005176
Application 11/409,586

3
utilizing a forwarding table associated with the virtual private network
identified by the unique identifier for purposes of forwarding the key
exchange request message to the destination in the second type of network to
establish the secured connection.

Rejections

A. Claims 1–7, 9, 11–17, and 19–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Chang (US Patent Application Publication No.
2005/0135359 A1) hereinafter Chang in view of Daude et al. (US
Patent No. 7,574,738 B2).
B. Claims 8, 10, 18 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of
Chang, Daude, and Yamada et al. (US Patent Application Publication
No. 2006/0070115 A1).
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of Rejection A
of claims 1–7, 9, 11–17, and 19–22 on the basis of representative claim 1.
We address rejection B of claims 8, 10, 18 and 23 separately infra. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1)(vii)(2004).1

1 Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on Aug 24, 2011. The date of filing
the Notice of Appeal determines which set of rules applies to an Ex Parte
appeal. If a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the
2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.) applies
to the appeal. See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 8th
ed., Rev. 8, July 2010.
Appeal 2012-005176
Application 11/409,586

4
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments with respect to
representative claim 1 and 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 and rebuttals set forth in the Answer in response to
Appellants’ arguments. (Ans. 11-19). However, we highlight and address
specific findings and arguments regarding representative claim1 for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection A of Claim 1
Issue: Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding the
cited prior art would have collectively taught or suggested the
contested limitation of: “receiving an initiating key exchange
request message originating from a source node in a first type
of network, the key exchange request message comprising a
unique identifier of a virtual private network,”

within the meaning of representative claim 1?

Appellants contend, inter alia:

A request message in Chang does not comprise a unique
identifier of a VPN. Chang describes a message comprising 1) a
private IP address of a source device, 2) a private IP address of
a destination device, 3) a cookie of a session initiating device,
and 4) a request. (Chang: Para 24:ll. 3-5) However, Chang's
request does not contain a network identifier and there is
nothing to suggest that it identifies a VPN. A private IP address
of a source device and a private address of a destination device
are unique addresses that are assigned to the individual devices
(Chang: Para [21], ll. 7-8), but they do not identify a VPN.
Chang's IP address of a source/destination device is not a
unique identifier of a VPN comprising a plurality of
destinations, as claimed.
Appeal 2012-005176
Application 11/409,586

5
(App. Br. 7-8).

The Examiner disagrees:

Please note the cookie as taught by Chang is associated with
[the] private IP address of the Virtual Private Network device
in the address table 8. Chang's cookie is also used to identify a
particular virtual private network device. Therefore, Chang's
cookie is capable of identifying the Virtual Private Network by
searching for match of the cookie and private IP address of the
of the Virtual Private Network device in the address table 8
(paragraph 0027). As explained above, Chang's cookie included
in the IKE packet can be a unique identifier of [the] Virtual
Private Network because it is used to identify the virtual private
network device, wherein each device in the virtual private
network is assigned a private IP address (paragraph 0021).

(Ans. 12-13).
We find the Examiner’s broader interpretation is supported by Chang
at ¶21: “Each device in the virtual private network 20 is assigned a private
IP address.” Therefore, we find the Examiner’s reliance on Chang as
teaching private IP addresses of devices within a VPN at least associates a
private IP address of a particular device with a particular VPN, and thus
could be used to (privately) identify the particular VPN containing the
device by association. Therefore, we find Chang at least suggests the
contested “unique identifier of a virtual private network” (Claim 1,
emphasis added). Moreover, we observe the secondary Daude reference
expressly describes: “(2) the use of VPN-IDs, and specifically the
concatenation of VPN-IDs with IP addresses to turn (potentially) non-unique
addresses into unique ones;” (Col. 3, ll. 18-21, emphasis added). Daude
additionally teaches using a VPN identifier as an index into a per-VPN
Appeal 2012-005176
Application 11/409,586

6
global identifier table. (Col. 3, ll. 35-37; Cf. with Address Table 8 of Chang,
Fig. 2). See also e.g., Daude Fig. 6, depicting “VPN ID = VPNE” where the
unique VPN identifier is “VPNE.” Given this evidence, it is clear that the
use of unique VPN identifiers and associated forwarding tables is
established prior art practice. Thus, the combination proffered by the
Examiner also renders obvious the last contested step of method claim 1:
“utilizing a forwarding table associated with the virtual private network
identified by the unique identifier . . . .”
Regarding Appellants’ additional allegation of impermissible
hindsight reconstruction (App. Br. 12), we find the Examiner provided
sufficient articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to have modified [ ] Chang's
teachings to include the virtual private network compris[ing] a
plurality of destinations as taught by Daude in order to
communicate [with] one another with a desired level of security
(Daude, Abstract).

(Ans. 5).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 17) that Chang and Daude are
directed to analogous art that pertains to VPNs. While we are fully aware
hindsight bias often plagues determinations of obviousness, Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966), we are also mindful the Supreme Court
guides that the “combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We are
further mindful the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of
Appeal 2012-005176
Application 11/409,586

7
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 420)
since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” (Id. at 421).
Here, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s proffered combination of
Chang and Daude would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary
considerations which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial
check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder
Systems, Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). See also App. Br. 21:
“EVIDENCE APPENDIX None.” Therefore, on this record, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred by improperly combining the references under
§ 103. (See Ans. 5). We find unavailing Appellants’ contention the
Examiner has relied on impermissible hindsight reconstruction (App.
Br. 12).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error regarding the
Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. On this record, we
find the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s position as
articulated in the Answer. (Ans. 11-19). We therefore sustain the § 103
rejection A of independent claim 1, and also rejection A of grouped
dependent claims 2–7, 9, 11–17, and 19–22 (not argued separately).
Rejection B of Dependent Claims 8, 10, 18 and 23
Appellants contend claims 8, 10, 18 and 23 are patentable because
“Yamada does not cure the deficiencies of Chang and Daude with respect to
Appeal 2012-005176
Application 11/409,586

8
claims 1, 14 and 21.” (App. Br. 13). However, we find no deficiencies
regarding the rejection of base claims 1, 14, and 21, for the reasons
discussed above. Therefore, we sustain § 103 rejection B of dependent
claims 8, 10, 18 and 23.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED

tc