Ex Parte Luo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201713948412 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/948,412 07/23/2013 Wenping Luo FORT-005721 4309 64128 7590 05/25/2017 MICHAEL A DESANCTIS HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP FINANCIAL PLAZA AT UNION SQUARE 225 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 150 LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 EXAMINER SEFCHECK, GREGORY B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2017 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): mdesanctis @ hdciplaw.com docket @ hdciplaw .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FORTINET, INC.1 Appeal 2016-006144 Application 13/948,412 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 7—9, 14, 15, and 20. The Examiner objects to dependent claims 3—6, 10-13, and 16—19. Final Act. 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The named inventors are Wenping Luo, Hongwei Li, Yixin Pan, and Tao Huang. Appeal 2016-006144 Application 13/948,412 Invention Appellant’s application discloses a method for increasing application performance accelerating data communications in a wide area network (WAN) environment that involves classifying packets as being associated with an existing connection-oriented flow. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a flow classification module executing on a first wide area network (WAN) acceleration device at an Internet Protocol (IP) layer of a protocol stack of the first WAN acceleration device, packets from a second WAN acceleration device via a private tunnel established between the first WAN acceleration device and the second WAN acceleration device, the private tunnel operable to convey application layer data for a dedicated application between the first WAN acceleration device and the second WAN acceleration device; after classifying, by the flow classification module, the packets as being associated with an existing connection-oriented flow, passing the packets to a WAN socket executing on the first WAN acceleration device at a transport layer of the protocol stack; based on an application layer protocol operable at an application layer of the protocol stack with which the packets are associated, passing, by the WAN socket, the packets to an application handler of a plurality of application handlers executing on the first WAN acceleration device at the application layer of the protocol stack, each of the plurality of application handlers implementing one or more application acceleration techniques for a particular application layer protocol of a plurality of application layer protocols that are operable at the application layer and known to behave poorly within a WAN environment; and 2 Appeal 2016-006144 Application 13/948,412 securely accelerating the existing connection-oriented flow, by the application handler, by performing the one or more application acceleration techniques and applying one or more security functions. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 7—9, 14, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haigh (US 2009/0092137 Al; Apr. 9, 2009). Final Act. 2-7. ANALYSIS Haigh teaches or suggests parsing data packets on logical segments and identifying each logical segment with a customer identifier. See Haigh 173, Fig. 4. The Examiner finds that such parsing teaches or suggests classifying packets as being associated with an existing connection-oriented flow, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Haigh || 48, 71—76, Figs. 19, 20, and 22). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Haigh merely segments customer traffic without classifying packets as being associated with an existing flow. Br. 15—16. Appellant’s argument is consistent with Haigh’s use of customer identification information to determine “whether a destination route is known to have a corresponding peer transaction accelerator associated with the route destination.” Haigh 173. The Examiner’s findings do not show customer identification information or an identified destination route for a packet (along with assets associated with that route) teaches or suggests an existing connection- oriented flow. As the Specification illustrates, a connection-oriented flow relates to the movement of data such as packets. See Spec. ]flf 78—79. A route is not a movement of data, but merely the path through which data can 3 Appeal 2016-006144 Application 13/948,412 be moved. Moreover, a customer ID or destination address merely identifies the intended destination of the data without being the movement of data itself. Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that “Haigh’s disclosure of ‘parsing’ packets that are communicated through the switch of accelerator devices in order to ‘lookup’ [a] customer ID/destination address of the packet meets [the]a broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘classification’ of packets as associated with an ‘existing connection-oriented flow’ as claimed.” Ans. 7—8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 7—9, 14, 15, and 20, which contain similar recitations. Because this issue is dispositive with respect to all pending claims, we do not reach additional issues Appellant raises in the Appeal Brief. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7—9, 14, 15, and 20. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation