Ex Parte Kuriakose et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

13677909 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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.
13/677,909 11/15/2012 Poulo Kuriakose 112-0691US 9163
85197 7590 04/03/2017 EXAMINER
RrnoaHe
c/o Blank Rome LLP NDIAYE, CHEIKH T
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
acollins@blankrome.com
hou stonpatents @ blankrome .com
klutsch @blankrome. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte POULO KURIAKOSE, AMR SABAA, RYAN HEGLAND,
ANDY DOOLEY, SIVA ADIRAJU, AMAR VUTUKURU, and
HIREN DESAI
Appeal 2016-008648
Application 13/677,9091
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 2-4, 6—8, 10-12, 14—16, 18—20, and 20-24 are not subject to any
standing rejection. See generally Final Act. (mailed June 17, 2015); Adv.
Act. (mailed Nov. 16, 2015).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3 (filed Jan. 18, 2016).
Appeal 2016-008648
Application 13/677,909
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention “relates to networking, and more particularly to
redundant links and devices.” Spec. 14 (filed Nov. 15, 2012). Claims 1, 5,
9, 13, 17, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
initiating a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
connection using a first of a plurality of paralleled network
devices at a first location and a first of a plurality of paralleled
network devices at a second location, the first of the plurality of
paralleled network devices at the first location acting as a local
termination for the TCP connection;
receiving a TCP transmission related to the TCP
connection at a second of the plurality of paralleled network
devices at the first location; and
transferring the TCP connection from the first of the
plurality of paralleled network devices at the first location to the
second of the plurality of paralleled network devices at the first
location in response to the receipt of the TCP transmission so that
the second of the plurality of paralleled network devices at the
first location can act as the local termination for the TCP
connection.
App. Br. 25 (Claims App’x).
Rejection on Appeal2
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Ramasamy et al. (US 2011/0255537 Al; published Oct. 20,
2011) (“Ramasamy”). See Final Act. 6—9; Ans. 2—5 (mailed July 22, 2016).
2 The following rejections are withdrawn: (1) claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
2
Appeal 2016-008648
Application 13/677,909
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants’ contentions is as
follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that Ramasamy’s Wide Area
Application Service (“WAAS”) module discloses “the first of the plurality
of paralleled network devices at the first location acting as a local
termination for the TCP connection,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Ramasamy discloses a plurality of paralleled
network devices (WAAS modules 200a—c) at a plurality of locations (Data
Center A 140, Data Center B 150, Branch Office 110). See Ans. 2—3 (citing
Ramasamy Fig. 1, H 23—28), 5—9 (citing Ramasamy H 14, 36—30, 46);
Final Act. 2, 6—7. The Examiner also finds that a WAAS module can detect
a Synchronization Acknowledgement (“SYN-ACK”) packet, which is being
transmitted to a Wide Area Network (“WAN”) and passed to the node that
generated a Synchronization (“SYN”) packet. See Ans. 3 (citing Ramasamy
1134-40), 10-14 (citing Ramasamy H 14, 17, 34-40); Final Act. 7. Having
detected the SYN-ACK packet, the Examiner finds that the WAAS module
marks the SYN-ACK packet with an identifier of another WAAS module
that is the first to see the SYN-ACK packet. See Ans. 3 (citing Ramasamy
1134-40), 10-14 (citing Ramasamy H 14, 17, 34-40); Final Act. 7. The
requirement; and (2) claims 2-4, 6—8, 10-12, 14—16, 18—20, and 22—24
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. See Adv. Act.
1.
3
Appeal 2016-008648
Application 13/677,909
Examiner explains that the WAAS module is deciding where the TCP packet
is to be routed by marking the SYN-ACK packet with an identifier of the
other WAAS module, which therefore becomes the “owner” of the TCP
connection. See, e.g., Ans. 10. Based on these findings, the Examiner posits
that the WAAS module discloses “the first of the plurality of paralleled
network devices at the first location acting as a local termination for the TCP
connection,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3 (citing Ramasamy || 34-40),
10-14 (citing Ramasamy || 14, 17, 34-40); Final Act. 7.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding that Ramasamy
discloses the limitation at issue. See App. Br. 20-23; Reply Br. 9—15 (filed
Sept. 29, 2016). More particularly, Appellants argue Ramasamy’s “WAAS
modules are not terminating any TCP connection; they are simply passing
the TCP connection packets (SYN, SYN-ACK and [Acknowledgement
(“ACK”)]) through, marking them as appropriate, but not otherwise handling
them, so that the TCP connection is terminated by the client 112 and the
server 118b across the WAN” (Reply Br. 13—14). See also App. Br. 23.
Appellants further argue Ramasamy’s disclosure of “ownership” by a
WAAS module has nothing to do with termination of the TCP connection,
but instead merely means that the TCP connection packets (e.g., SYN, SYN-
ACK, and ACK) must pass or flow through that particular WAAS module
when several alternative routes may be available. See Reply Br. 15.
We agree with Appellants for the reasons stated by Appellants.
Although the cited disclosures show TCP connection packets (e.g., SYN
SYN-ACK and ACK) passing though and being acted on (e.g., marked) by
Ramasamy’s WAAS modules, there is no evidence of any of Ramasamy’s
WAAS modules “acting as a local termination for the TCP connection,” as
4
Appeal 2016-008648
Application 13/677,909
required by claim 1. See Ramasamy Fig. 8, Tflf 24 (“That SYN packet passes
through and is thus ‘seen’ or detected by WAAS module 200c”), 28
(disclosing that one WAAS module can redirect a TCP connection packet to
another WAAS module), 34 (“[A] SYN-ACK packet is received, at... a
WAAS module . . . and ... the SYN-ACK packet is marked with an
identifier of. . . the WAAS module that is first to “see” the SYN-ACK
packet. The packet is then passed to a router to be returned to the WAN for
delivery to the device . . . that sent a SYN packet to which the SYN-ACK
packet is responsive.”), 36 (“[T]he SYN packet is marked with the WAAS
identifier associated with the destination IP address. The marked SYN
packet may then be passed to a router for routing to the WAN.”). Instead, as
Appellants argue, it appears Ramasamy’s TCP connection stays open after
passing through a WAAS module at least until the respective TCP packet
arrives at its intended destination, e.g., Client 112 or Server 118a or b. See
Ramasamy Fig. 1; || 35 (“[A] marked SYN-ACK packet is received. . . .
[and] parsed to obtain the identifier of the WAAS module that marked that
packet.... The SYN-ACK packet is then allowed to continue to its
intended destination, namely, e.g., Client 112.”), 36 (“[0]nce a connection is
established between nodes, the WAAS module continually marks
subsequent outgoing packets involved in the session in this fashion, thereby
increasing TCP-level connection efficiency.”). Further, the fact that the
WAAS module that sees the SYN-ACK packet first becomes the “owner” of
the TCP connection (see Ramasamy 139) does not indicate a local
termination of the TCP connection. Instead, this disclosure merely indicates
that the TCP connection packet must pass or flow through that particular
WAAS module. See, e.g., Ramasamy || 34—39.
5
Appeal 2016-008648
Application 13/677,909
For emphasis, we note that we also disagree with the Examiner that
Ramasamy’s disclosure of WAAS modules 200a—c at Data Center A 140,
Data Center B 150, and Branch Office 110 discloses “a plurality of
paralleled network devices at a first location and ... a plurality of paralleled
network devices at a second location,” as further recited in claim 1. Indeed,
we find no evidence that more than one WAAS module exists at any one of
Ramasamy’s Data Center A 140, Data Center B 150, or Branch Office 110.
See Ramasamy Fig. 1 (showing WAAS module 200a associated with Data
Center A, WAAS module 200b associated with Data Center B, and WAAS
module 200c associated with Branch Office 110); H 13 (“[WAAS] module
200c (shown as two separate blocks in the figure for purposes of
explanation).”, 29 (disclosing various implementations of a WAAS module,
but none that indicate a WAAS module is “a plurality of paralleled network
devices”), 30.
For the above reasons, we conclude the Examiner errs in the rejection
of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections
of independent claims 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21, each of which includes a similar
limitation to the one at issue with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 27, 29,
30-31,33,35.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1,5, 9, 13, 17, and 21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6