Ex Parte Koponen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

13589035 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

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.
13/589,035 08/17/2012 Teemu Koponen N018 (NCRA.P0101) 5510
109858 7590
VMware, Inc.
3401 Hill view Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
EXAMINER
HARLEY, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2018 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):
ipadmin@vmware.com
ipteam @ vmware. com
mail@ adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TEEMU KOPONEN, MARTIN CASADO, PANKAJ THAKKAR,
RONGHUA ZHANG, and DANIEL J. WENDLANDT1
Appeal 2017-002760
Application 13/589,035
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, all the pending claims in the
present application. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to managing a set of switching
elements in a network. See Abstract.
1 The Appellants name Nicira, Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-002760
Application 13/589,035
Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative:
1. A network control system for managing a set of
switching elements in a network, the network control system
comprising:
a first set of network controllers for managing a first set
of forwarding elements, that enable communication between a first set
of machines, by defining a first logical datapath set to which the
machines of the first set logically connect;
a second set of network controllers for managing a
second set of forwarding elements, that enable communication
between a second set of machines, by defining a second logical
datapath set to which the machines of the second set logically connect,
the second set of forwarding elements separate from the first set of
forwarding elements and the second set of machines separate from the
first set of machines; and
a third set of network controllers for managing the first
and second sets of network controllers, in order to enable
communication between machines in the first set of machines and
machines in the second set of machines, by defining a third logical
datapath set to which the machines of the first and second sets of
machines logically connect.
17. A network system comprising:
a first set of machines in a first domain and a second set
of machines in a second domain;
within each of the domains, a plurality of edge
forwarding elements that are each for (i) coupling to the machines in
the domain and (ii) forwarding network data to and from the machines
in the domain;
a first set of network controllers in the first domain and a
second set of network controllers in the second domain, each of the
first and second sets of network controllers for managing the edge
forwarding elements within their particular domain by specifying a
first level logical forwarding element comprising logical ports to
which the machines of the set of machines within the particular
domain couple, the first level logical forwarding element for
implementation by the edge forwarding elements within the domain;
and
2
Appeal 2017-002760
Application 13/589,035
a third set of network controllers for (i) specifying a
second level logical forwarding element comprising logical ports to
which machines of both the first and second sets of machines couple
and (ii) communicating with the first and second sets of network
controllers in order for the first and second sets of network controllers
in order for the first and second sets of network controllers to
implement the second level logical forwarding element within the
specification of the respective first level logical forwarding elements.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Rl. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2013/0024579 Al, Jan. 24,
2013) and Vasseur (US 2007/0217419 Al, Sept. 20, 2007);
R2. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang and Lakshman (US 2006/0092976 Al, May 4,
2006); and
R3. Claims 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in combination with various
other prior art (see Final Act. 3—20).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—16
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Zhang and Vasseur
collectively teach or suggest “a third set of network controllers . . . defining
3
Appeal 2017-002760
Application 13/589,035
a third logical datapath set to which the machines of the first and second sets
of machines logically connect,” as set forth in claim 1?
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of the references teaches or suggests a third
logical datapath set to which the machines of the first and second sets of
machines logically connect, as set forth in claim 1.
Specifically, Appellants contend:
Clearly this design system [in Zhang], while identifying the
clusters, does not perform any network controller functions that
could in any reasonable way be construed as having the ability
to define a logical datapath set to which the machines of the
first and second sets of machines logically connect, even if one
were to accept the flawed premise that Vasseur describes such
logical datapath sets.
(App. Br. 13). Appellants further contend that “there is no indication as to
how the Office Action is mapping the [path computation element (PCE) of
Vasseur] to one of the logical datapath sets of claim 1 or, if not doing so,
what exactly is being mapped to the first, second, and third logical datapath
sets” (App. Br. 14).
Although we agree with the Examiner that “the design system [401]
shown in [Zhang’s] fig. 4, par 0041, 0044, represents the third set of
controllers that manages controllers 419 and 415” (Ans. 5), we find that the
Examiner has only shown that Zhang’s management of controllers 419 and
415 merely uses network management module 409 to “discover the network
topology . . . and/or to implement controller placement in an automated
process” (see 143). In other words, the Zhang’s management module 409 is
4
Appeal 2017-002760
Application 13/589,035
described as communicating with and acting like the topology graphing
module 405/controller placement module 407 by automating placement of
controllers in central network elements in respective clusters to minimize
inter-cluster link lengths (see Zhang Fig. 4). Zhang fails to describe how the
processor 403 communicates with and/or manages the split architecture,
other than discussing how the automated controller placement is done.
While Zhang states that “[t]he processor 403 can also execute a network
management module 409 to communicate with and/or manage the split
architecture network (see 141), Zhang’s disclosure merely emphasizes such
management is being directed to communicating with the controller
placement module to discover network topology to implement controller
placement in the clusters (see 143).
Stated differently, the Examiner has not shown that Zhang’s design
system 401, including the management module 407, includes the type of
management set forth in the claims, i.e., enables communication between
machines in the first set of machines with machines in the second set of
machines by defining a third logical datapath, as set forth in claim 1.
Instead, Zhang merely discloses that “there are two controllers 415, 419 to
control their respective clusters 411A,B” (| 44 (emphasis added)) and
processor 403 is concerned with placement of controllers in the clusters.
The Examiner has not shown where Zhang discloses that a network
controller manages machines from different clusters/sets to communicate
with each other through a third logical datapath.
In fact, the Examiner concedes in the Final Action that Zhang fails to
show a third logical path as claimed (see Final Act. 4) and instead relies on
Vasseur’s teaching of logical paths (id. at 5). However, Appellants contend
5
Appeal 2017-002760
Application 13/589,035
that “there is no indication as to how the Office Action is mapping
[Vasseur’s] PCE to one of the logical datapath sets of claim 1” (App. Br.
14). Although in the Final Action the Examiner indicates that paragraph 55
of Vasseur teaches the claimed logical datapaths (see Final Act. 5), we find
that paragraph 55 merely discusses the general concept of computing the
best/shortest paths to the PEs from the requesting CE. In the Examiner’s
discussion in the Response to Arguments section of the Answer, the
Examiner fails to address Appellants’ specific arguments supra regarding
Vasseur (see Ans. 5—6). In other words, the Examiner is silent about how
the combined teachings of Zhang and Vasseur teach or suggest a third
logical datapath set to which machines of the first and second set of
machines logically connect, in part because the Examiner’s response in the
Answer is limited to Zhang’s teachings, which the Examiner previously
found did not teach or suggest the claimed definition of logical datapaths
(see id.). Thus, we agree with Appellants that it is unclear what the
Examiner is mapping the claimed third logical datapath set to in the
Zhang/Vasseur combination.
We are therefore constrained by the record before us to find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and the claims dependent thereon for
similar reasons. Since this issue is dispositive regarding our reversal of
independent claim 1, we need not address Appellants’ additional arguments
pertaining thereto or the claims dependent thereon.
Claims 17—20
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Zhang and Lakshman
collectively teach or suggest “a third set of network controllers for . . . (ii)
6
Appeal 2017-002760
Application 13/589,035
communicating with first and second sets of network controllers ... to
implement the second level logical forwarding element,” as set forth in
claim 17?
Appellants contend that “[cjlearly this design system [in Zhang],
while identifying the clusters, does not perform any network controller
functions that could in any reasonable way be construed as having the ability
to specify a second level logical forwarding element” (App. Br. 18), because
“[t]he switches of Zhang referred to by the Office Action are either in cluster
1 or cluster 2; there is no sort of higher level switch in Zhang” {id. at 19).
In response, the Examiner makes substantially the same findings as
for claim 1 (see Ans. 9—10), which we find deficient. As noted supra,
Zhang’s management module 409 is described as communicating with and
acting like the controller placement module 407 by automating placement of
controllers in central network elements in respective clusters to minimize
inter-cluster link lengths {see Zhang Fig. 4). However, the Examiner’s
findings fail to describe what precisely the Examiner is relying on to teach a
second level logical forwarding element. In the Response to Arguments
section of the Answer, the Examiner is silent as to what in Zhang or
Lakshman is being mapped to in the claimed second level logical forwarding
elements {see Ans. 9—10). An Examiner cannot entirely ignore any
limitation in a claim while determining whether the subject matter of the
claim would have been obvious. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA
1970).
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown
any sort of higher level, i.e., second level, switch in Zhang that is
implemented by the first/second sets of network controllers (App. Br. 18).
7
Appeal 2017-002760
Application 13/589,035
Lakshman fails to make up for deficiencies of Zhang because the Examiner
appears to only use Lakshman to show edge forwarding elements (see Final
Act. 18).
We are therefore constrained by the record before us to find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17, and the claims dependent thereon for
similar reasons. Since this issue is dispositive regarding our reversal of
independent claim 17, we need not address Appellants’ additional arguments
pertaining thereto or the claims dependent thereon.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
8