Ex Parte Malalur

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 10, 2008

09714273 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 10, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte GOVIND MALALUR
__________

Appeal 2008-2062
Application 09/714,273
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: December 10, 2008
__________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2008-2062
Application 09/714,273

2
THE INVENTION
The disclosed invention relates generally to a method and apparatus
for a table lookup index that provides access to a table, such as an addressing
table, in a fast and efficient manner. More particularly, Appellant’s table
lookup index is for the transmission of data packets in a network switch.
(Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of performing a table look-up in a network
device comprising the steps of:

receiving a data packet through an input port of the
network device;

parsing said data packet into an index portion and a
corresponding bucket portion;

indexing, directly, said index portion to said
corresponding bucket portion; and

accessing address table information stored in an address
look-up table using said bucket portion.

THE REFERENCE
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in
support of the anticipation rejection:
Bechtolsheim US 6,829,217 B1 Dec. 7, 2004

Appeal 2008-2062
Application 09/714,273

3
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Bechtolsheim.

CONTENTIONS BY APPELLANT
Appellant contends, inter alia, that there is no teaching or suggestion
in Bechtolsheim of parsing the data packet into an index and a bucket
portion (App. Br. 14, ¶ 2), and also that “Bechtolsheim is devoid of any
teaching or suggestion of the indexing, directly, of said index portion to said
corresponding bucket portion” (App. Br. 16, ¶ 1). We note that equivalent
limitations are recited in each of remaining independent claims 8 and 15.

EXAMINER’S RESPONSE
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner notes that Bechtolsheim
discloses a method of parsing a packet header as disclosed at column 5, lines
31-41, and as also shown in step 302 of Bechtolsheim’s Figure 3. The
Examiner proffers that the claimed index is generated by transforming the
extracted packet header data into an index using one of the two hash
functions that Bechtolsheim describes at column 6, lines 6-26 (Ans. 5-6).
However, the Examiner does not directly address Appellant’s contentions
that Bechtolsheim does not disclose the claimed limitations of parsing the
data packet into an index portion and a bucket portion, and also indexing,
directly, of said index portion to said corresponding bucket portion as recited
in equivalent form in each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.

Appeal 2008-2062
Application 09/714,273

4
ISSUE(S)
We have determined that the following issue is dispositive in this
appeal:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Bechtolsheim discloses the claimed limitations of parsing the
data packet into an index portion and a bucket portion and also
the indexing, directly, of said index portion to said
corresponding bucket portion, as recited in equivalent form in
each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). Therefore, we look to Appellant’s Briefs to show error in the
proffered prima facie case.

FINDINGS OF FACTS
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.

Appeal 2008-2062
Application 09/714,273

5
The Bechtolsheim reference
1. Bechtolsheim discloses that “[u]pon receipt of a packet in a given
flow, 300, the packet header is parsed 302 to determine the packet
size, source address, destination address, and type of service (TOS)”
and also that “the UDP source and destination port (for an IP packet)
or the MAC source and destination and protocol type (for Ethernet
packets) may be extracted as required to fully identify the necessary
TOS (Bechtolsheim, col. 5, ll. 29-36).
2. Bechtolsheim discloses two exemplary hash functions that each take
as an input the extracted source and destination addresses as indicated
by the code portions shown in column 6 (col. 6, ll. 12 and 24).
3. The output of Bechtolsheim’s hash function is an index to flow table
335 (Bechtolsheim, col. 6, ll. 28-29).
4. Bechtolsheim discloses a primary embodiment directed to Internet
Protocol (IP) packet flows, but also provides that alternative protocols
such as Ethernet may be used (col. 5, ll. 19-25).
5. Bechtolsheim discloses flow table hash buckets (col. 7, ll. 9 and 33).

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and
15 as being anticipated by Bechtolsheim.
After considering the evidence before us, and the respective
arguments on both sides, we find the Bechtolsheim reference falls short of
anticipating Appellant’s claimed invention for essentially the same reasons
Appeal 2008-2062
Application 09/714,273

6
argued by Appellant in the Briefs. In particular, we agree with Appellant’s
observation that Bechtolsheim does not disclose parsing the data packet into
an index and a bucket portion (App. Br. 14, ¶ 2), and also that Bechtolsheim
does not disclose the indexing, directly, of said index portion to said
corresponding bucket portion, as claimed (App. Br. 16).

Claim Construction
We begin our analysis by broadly but reasonably construing the
disputed claim terms “index portion” and “bucket portion.” During
prosecution, “the PTO gives claims their ‘broadest reasonable
interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting
In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
Here, when we refer to Appellant’s disclosure for context, we find
Appellant’s claimed look-up table is accessed using an index that points to
(i.e., is directly indexed to) a bucket portion that functions as a subindex into
a subdivision of the look-up table. See e.g., Appellant’s Figure 3 and the
associated description in paragraphs [44] and [45] of the Specification.
Consistent with Appellant’s Specification, we broadly but reasonably
construe the claimed “index portion” as an address pointer, and we broadly
but reasonably construe the claimed “bucket portion” as a subindex that is
pointed to (i.e., directly indexed) by the aforementioned “index portion.”
(see independent claims 1, 8, and 15).
Given the aforementioned claim construction, we find that
Bechtolsheim does not disclose parsing the incoming data packet into an
index portion and a corresponding bucket portion, where the index portion is
Appeal 2008-2062
Application 09/714,273

7
indexed to the corresponding bucket portion, as required by the language of
each independent claim before us on appeal. Instead, Bechtolsheim merely
discloses that “the packet header is parsed 302 to determine the packet size,
source address, destination address, and type of service (TOS)” and also that
“the UDP source and destination port (for an IP packet) or the MAC source
and destination and protocol type (for Ethernet packets) may be extracted as
required to fully identify the necessary TOS.” (FF 1).
In particular, we find that Bechtolsheim’s parsed (extracted) source
address and destination addresses refer to Internet Protocol (IP) (or other
protocol) source and destination addresses and are not reasonably indexes or
pointers that are directly indexed to a subindex (i.e., bucket portion) that
further points to a subportion of a table. Each of independent claims 1, 8,
and 15 requires that both the index portion and the bucket portion be parsed
from the received data packet.
To the contrary, Bechtolsheim clearly discloses using the parsed
source address and destination address as input to a hash function that
generates (i.e., calculates) a hash index to flow table 335 (FF 2-3). While
Bechtolsheim does disclose that the calculated hash index points to hash
buckets (i.e., slots in a hash table) (FF 5), we find that Bechtolsheim’s hash
“buckets” are not parsed from the data packet and they are not indexed
directly by an index that is parsed from the data packet, as required by each
of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, the evidence before us
supports Appellant’s position as argued in the Briefs. We note that “absence
from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster
Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2008-2062
Application 09/714,273

8
We conclude that Appellant has met his/her burden of showing that
the Examiner erred in finding that Bechtolsheim discloses the claimed
limitations of parsing the data packet into an index portion and a bucket
portion and also the indexing, directly, of said index portion to said
corresponding bucket portion, as recited in equivalent form in each of
independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 as being anticipated by Bechtolsheim. Because we have
reversed the Examiner’s rejection of each independent claim on appeal, we
also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of each dependent claim on appeal.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude
Appellant has met his/her burden of showing that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15.

REVERSED

pgc

SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P.
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE
14TH FLOOR
VIENNA VA 22182-6212