Ex Parte Kumar et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2010

10723150 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2010)

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.
10/723,150 11/26/2003 Vinoj N. Kumar 5-5 9235
7590 09/22/2010
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley, NY 11560
EXAMINER
BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2010 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 VINOJ N. KUMAR and NARENDER R. VANGATI
____________

Appeal 2009-007117
Application 10/723,150
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007117
Application 10/723,150

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of generating a
representation of an access control list. The representation is utilizable in a
network processor or other type of processor to perform packet filtering or
other type of access control list based function. A plurality of rules of the
access control list are determined. Each of at least a subset of the rules has a
plurality of fields and a corresponding action. The rules are processed to
generate a multi-level tree representation of the access control list, in which
each of one or more of the levels of the tree representation is associated with
a corresponding one of the fields. At least one level of the tree
representation other than a root level of the tree representation comprises a
plurality of nodes, with at least two of the nodes at that level each having a
separate matching table associated therewith. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method of generating a representation of an
access control list, the representation being utilizable in a
processor, the method comprising the steps of:

determining a plurality of rules of the access control list,
each of at least a subset of the rules having a plurality of fields
and a corresponding action; and
Appeal 2009-007117
Application 10/723,150

3

processing the rules to generate a multi-level tree
representation of the access control list, each of one or more of
the levels of the tree representation being associated with a
corresponding one of the fields;

wherein at least one level of the tree representation other
than a root level of the tree representation comprises a plurality
of nodes, with at least two of the nodes at that level each having
a separate matching table associated therewith.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cathey (US 2002/0085560 A1) and
Holdsworth (US 2003/0188198 A1).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cathey, Holdsworth, and Miller (US 2003/0005146 A1).
Claims 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cathey, Holdsworth, and Gai (US
6,651,096 B1).

Claim Groupings
In view of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

PRINCIPAL ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Cathey and Holdsworth teaches at least one level of the tree
Appeal 2009-007117
Application 10/723,150

4
representation other than a root level having a plurality of nodes with at least
two of the nodes at that level each having a separate matching table
associated therewith?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citations omitted).

Obviousness
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). “The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” Id. at 416.

Appeal 2009-007117
Application 10/723,150

5
ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 20
The Examiner finds that Cathey teaches at least one level of the tree
representation other than a root level comprises a plurality of nodes. The
Examiner also finds that Holdsworth teaches at least two of the nodes at that
level each having a separate matching table associated therewith. The
Examiner concludes that the combination of Cathey and Holdsworth teaches
“at least one level of the tree representation other than a root level of the tree
representation comprises a plurality of nodes, with at least two of the nodes
at that level each having a separate matching table associated therewith” as
recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-4, 8-9.
Appellants contend that neither Cathey alone nor Holdsworth alone
teaches at least one level of the tree representation other than a root level
having a plurality of nodes with at least two of the nodes at that level each
having a separate matching table associated therewith. App. Br. 6-7.
Appellants’ contention about each reference individually does not
rebut the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Cathey and Holdsworth
teaches at least one level of the tree representation other than a root level
having a plurality of nodes with at least two of the nodes at that level each
having a separate matching table associated therewith.
Appellants further contend that Cathey shows a single ACL, and
Holdsworth shows a separate ACL at each node of a tree of message topics.
Appellants conclude that the ACL arrangement of Holdsworth is therefore
incompatible with the ACL of Cathey. App. Br. 7-9.
Although Holdsworth discusses separate access control lists at each
node, each list corresponds to the claimed “separate matching table” at each
Appeal 2009-007117
Application 10/723,150

6
node. Appellants have not provided a definition of the term “separate
matching table” that excludes the access controls specified at each node as
taught by Holdsworth. In fact, the separate matching tables shown in Figure
3 of Appellants’ Specification appear to specify access controls at each node
of level 2. See Spec. 12:12-25. Therefore, the access controls that are
specified at each node as taught by Holdsworth are “a separate matching
table” within the meaning of claim 1. Each of Cathey and Holdsworth
discloses a tree structure representation that comprises a plurality of nodes.
Holdsworth teaches a separate matching table at each node. Appellants have
not provided evidence or persuasive arguments to show that the separate
matching table at each node of the tree representation of Holdsworth is
incompatible with the nodes in the tree representation of Cathey.
Appellants contend that Cathey teaches away from the separate
matching tables of claim 1 because each of the leaves of the decision tree of
Cathey is coupled to the root via a unique set of linked branches. App. Br.
8. However, Appellants’ Figure 3 shows a single branching that occurs at
each node. Further, Appellant has failed to cite any portion of Cathey that
would criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage an artisan from using the
matching tables of Holdsworth in the decision tree of Cathey. We therefore
find that Cathey does not teach away from using the matching tables of
Holdsworth.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient
motivation for combining Cathey and Holdsworth. In particular, Appellants
contend that the Examiner’s reason of modifying Cathey using the matching
tables of Holdsworth “to enhance network security” is insufficient because
Cathey alone can clearly provide access control and network security. App.
Appeal 2009-007117
Application 10/723,150

7
Br. 8. The Examiner finds that both Cathey and Holdsworth are in the art of
network security. The Examiner further finds that adding the ACL data of
Holdsworth to the decision tree of Cathey allows the decision tree of Cathey
to safely classify packets by comparing incoming packets with ACL data.
Ans. 9-10. Appellants respond that this motivation is deficient because the
topic-based structure of Holdsworth is not readily adaptable to the single
ACL of Cathey, and may well be unworkable. Reply Br. 3. However,
Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive arguments to show that
adding the access controls described by Holdsworth to each node of the tree
structure described by Cathey is in fact unworkable.
Appellants contend that the combination of Cathey and Holdsworth
entirely fails to provide the benefits described on pages 8, 9, and 11 of
Appellants’ Specification. App. Br. 9. However, the benefits described in
the Specification are not recited in the claim and we find no basis for reading
the alleged benefits into the claim.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants have not presented arguments for separate patentability of claims
1, 3-5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 20, which thus fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claim 6
Appellants contend that Cathey does not disclose having nodes that
are each associated with a subtree of a given one of a number of distinct
source addresses of the root level of the tree. App. Br. 10. The Examiner
finds that the second level of figure 5B of Cathey is connected to, or
“associated with,” a subtree of a given one of the distinct source addresses of
Appeal 2009-007117
Application 10/723,150

8
the root level within the meaning of claim 6. Ans. 10. Appellants have not
responded to the Examiner’s finding.
We sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Section 103 rejection of claim 7
Appellants contend that Cathey does not disclose a given one of the
second level subtrees identifies one or more destination addresses to be
examined if the corresponding root level source address matches a source
address of a given received packet. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds that
figure 5B of Cathey identifies destination addresses to be examined by
matching to prestored data. Ans. 10. Appellants have not responded to this
finding by the Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Section 103 rejection of claim 9
Appellants contend that Cathey does not describe how the decision
tree of figure 5B is generated. App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds that
paragraph 30 of Cathey describes generating a decision tree. Ans. 11.
Appellants have not responded to this finding by the Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Section 103 rejection of claim 2
Appellants contend that the combination of Cathey and Holdsworth
fails to teach or suggest an arrangement in which at least two of the nodes at
a non-root level of a tree representation each have a separate matching table
associated therewith. Appellants also contend that Miller fails to remedy
Appeal 2009-007117
Application 10/723,150

9
this deficiency. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants’ arguments are similar to the
arguments presented for claim 1, which we find unpersuasive.
We sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Section 103 rejection of claims 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19
Appellants contend that Gai does not describe non-root level nodes of
a tree having matching tables arranged in order of decreasing specificity.
App. Br. 12. The Examiner finds that Gai teaches matching tables arranged
in decreasing order of specificity (Ans. 11), and the combination of Cathey
and Holdsworth teaches non-root level nodes having matching tables (Ans.
3-4). Appellants’ contention does not address the Examiner’s findings.
We sustain the rejection of claim 10. Appellants have not presented
arguments for separate patentability of claims 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19, which
thus fall with claim 10.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Cathey and Holdsworth teaches at least one level of the tree
representation other than a root level having a plurality of nodes with at least
two of the nodes at that level each having a separate matching table
associated therewith.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cathey and Holdsworth is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-007117
Application 10/723,150

10
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cathey, Holdsworth, and Miller is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cathey, Holdsworth, and Gai is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley NY 11560