Ex Parte Mehra

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 4, 2011

10722180 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 4, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PANKAJ MEHRA
____________

Appeal 2009-007091
Application 10/722,180
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, 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 2009-007091
Application 10/722,180

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-44, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to the configuration of multi-fabric
networks, such as computer networks. A plurality of first nodes is assigned
as a balanced incomplete block design of the form 2-(v, k, 1) = b, wherein v
first nodes, arranged in b groups of k first nodes, are interconnected such
that a pair of first nodes appears in only one group of the b groups. A
plurality of sets of second nodes are provided such that each first node is
associated with at least one set of second nodes and network paths are
determined from each second node of the plurality of sets of second nodes to
every other second node. (Abstract).
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A multi-fabric interconnection system, comprising:
a plurality of first nodes interconnected as a balanced
incomplete block design of the form 2-(v, k, 1) = b, wherein v
first nodes, arranged in b groups of k first nodes, are
interconnected such that each pair of first nodes appears in
only one group of the b groups, and
a plurality of first forwarding nodes configured to
interconnect the plurality of first nodes;

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 12, 30, and 42
indicating they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
incorporating all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening
claims (Ans. 2). The Final Rejection of claims 1-11, 13-29, 31-41, 43, and
44 remains on appeal.
Appeal 2009-007091
Application 10/722,180

3
a plurality of sets of second nodes, wherein each second
node is connected to one of the first nodes, and wherein each of
the second nodes is interconnected to every other second node.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Baty US 5,243,704 Sep. 7, 1993
Kim US 5,892,932 Apr. 6, 1999
Claims 1-7, 11, 13, 14, 16-21, 29, 31-37, 41, and 43 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Baty.
Claims 8-10, 15, 22-28, and 38-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Baty in view of Kim.
Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Baty.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the
Briefs (Appeal Brief filed May 1, 2008; Reply Brief filed Sep. 11, 2008) and
the Answer (mailed July 31, 2008) for the respective positions of Appellant
and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have
been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in
the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether Baty’s ports 12a, . . . 24c (Baty Fig. 1;
col. 3, ll. 62-68) meet the claimed “plurality of sets of second nodes, wherein
each second node is connected to one of the first nodes, and wherein each of
the second nodes is interconnected to every other second node,” as recited in
claim 1.

Appeal 2009-007091
Application 10/722,180

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
[T]he [US]PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Though understanding
the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the
written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that
are not part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987). “These elements must be arranged as in the claim under
review, but this is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Referring to Baty’s Fig. 1, the Examiner asserts that the “first nodes”
recited in claim 1 read on Baty’s nodes 12, . . . 24, the “first forwarding
nodes” recited in claim 1 read on Baty’s buses 26, . . . 38, and the “second
nodes” recited in claim 1 read on the ports 12a, . . . 24c of Baty’s nodes
(Ans. 3-4, 9-10). Although raised in the Appeal Brief, the Reply Brief does
not contest the Examiner’s explanations (Ans. 9) of Baty’s fabrics and
mathematical form, or that the claimed “first forwarding nodes” read on
Appeal 2009-007091
Application 10/722,180

5
Baty’s “buses” 26, . . . 28 (Reply Br. 1; but cf. App. Br. 11). We find the
Examiner’s explanations on these points to be reasonable and concur with
the Examiner.
Appellant contends Baty does not disclose “a plurality of sets of
second nodes, wherein each second node is connected to one of the first
nodes, and wherein each of the second nodes is interconnected to every other
second node” (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 1-2). Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s broad reading of “node” to include Baty’s “ports” is inconsistent
with the use of the terms in the Specification (App. Br. 11) and renders the
term “node” essentially meaningless (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 1). Appellant
further points to examples of “end nodes” in the Specification, which
includes a discussion of “nodes” having “network interface ports” (App. Br.
11; Spec ¶ [0054]. However, while Appellant concedes that Baty’s use of
the terms “node” and “port” is consistent with the Specification (App. Br.
11), Appellant points to differences in the technologies contemplated by
Appellant and Baty (id.).
As Appellant has recognized (Reply Br. 2), the Examiner construes
the disputed claims with the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, see Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054, without importing
limitations from the Specification into the claim, SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at
875. We observe that, as the Examiner implies (Ans. 9-10), Appellant’s
arguments rely on limitations not found in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite
“end nodes” or nodes with “ports,” nor does it recite limitations that
distinguish the claim over Baty based on the contemplated technologies.
Furthermore, whether a reference anticipates a claim depends on what the
reference discloses to one skilled in the art, not on the vocabulary used in the
Appeal 2009-007091
Application 10/722,180

6
reference. See Bond, 910 F.2d at 832. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
by these arguments. We also note that Appellant’s Specification, without
providing a definition, indicates that the terms “node” and “port” may be
used in the art (“field”) interchangeably.
For clarity of discussion, we will call these “endpoints” while
using the term “node” for the various nodes V1-V5. In the field
to which it pertains, either term, “endpoint” or “node,” or even
other terms (e.g., “port”), may be used to describe the same
items. Accordingly, no definitions are made here. Rather, the
usage of specific terms is meant to lend toward understanding
the present disclosure.
(Spec. ¶ [0088]).
Appellant further argues that Baty’s ports 12a, . . . 24c do not meet the
recitation in claim 1 that “each of the second nodes is interconnected to
every other second node” (Reply Br. 2). In response, the Examiner points
out that second node “12a is connected to every other second nodes [sic] by
[first forwarding nodes] 26, 28 – 38 and each interface section inside each
[first] node, e.g. 40 on [node] 12” (Ans. 9-10). Appellant points to Baty at
column 5, lines 3-11, as contradicting the presence of a connection through
the interface section (Reply Br. 2). However, we find no contradiction and
find support for the Examiner’s findings in Baty’s disclosure that “[t]he
interface circuitry 40 is connected to the processing section by an internal
bus line 44 which is multiplexed to carry addressing and data signals, as well
as command signals” (Baty col. 5, ll. 8-11). Therefore, we conclude the
Examiner’s explanation and findings to be reasonable and further note that
claim 1 recites no limitation as to how the connections are made or how they
function.
Appeal 2009-007091
Application 10/722,180

7
Appellant further argues in the Reply Brief that if the second nodes
(Baty’s ports 12a . . . 24c) are all interconnected, then the first nodes (Baty’s
nodes 12, . . . 24) do not meet the limitation that “each pair of first nodes
appears in only one group of the b groups” (Reply Br. 2). We disagree. We
find nothing in the claim that would preclude connections between the
plurality of first nodes in addition to those that define the b groups.
Therefore, we find Appellant’s argument relies on limitations not found in
the claim.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejections of claim 1, as well
as claims 2, 8-10, 13-17, 22-28, and 31 which are not argued separately or
are indicated as falling with claim 1 (App. Br. 12, 18-19, 24).
Claim 32
With regard to claim 32, Appellant has further argued that Baty does
not disclose “providing a mathematical representation of the plurality of first
nodes in the BIBD design and converting the mathematical representation to
a physical design.” (App. Br. 24-25). However, Appellant’s Reply Brief
does not point to any evidence to challenge the Examiner’s reasonable
explanation (Ans. 9) of the mathematical correlation between Baty and claim
32. We further note that Baty discloses using mathematical representations
of the nodes (see, e.g., col. 4, ll. 3-43) and constructing a network in
accordance with the mathematical representation (col. 4, ll. 44-47).
Therefore, in view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated for claim 1,
supra, we also sustain the rejections of claim 32 as well as claims 33, 38-40,
43, and 44 which are indicated as falling with claim 32 (App. Br. 25, 30).
Appeal 2009-007091
Application 10/722,180

8
Claim 3
Appellant contends that Baty does not disclose that “each first node
includes at least one first switch,” as recited by claim 3 (App. Br. 12-13). In
response, the Examiner points out that
[a]s disclosed in column 5, lines 12 – 31, Baty teaches during
data transmission, interface circuitry 40 and its processing logic
section 42 within each first node determines through which port
data should be routed to a destination, and routing data from
one port to another is the operation of a switch.
(Ans. 10-11). Regarding claim 5, the Examiner further points out that in
Baty
the set of second node [sic] (12a - 12c) is interconnected to the
set of second node [sic] (14a – 14c) via the first switch (40 and
42) since the first switch (40 and 42) determines how to route
data from the first set of second node [sic] (12a - 12c) to the
second set (14a - 14c).
(Ans. 11).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and observe
that Appellant has provided no further rebuttal in the Reply Brief nor has
pointed to any evidence to counter the Examiner’s reasonable explanations
of the rejections. Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 4 (App. Br. 13), 5
(App. Br. 14-15), 6 (App. Br. 15-16), 18 (App. Br. 19), 19 (App. Br. 20), 20
(App. Br. 21-22), 34 (App. Br. 25), 35 (App. Br. 26), and 36 (App. Br. 27-
28) are substantially the same as those made for claim 3. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejections of claims 3-6, 18-20, and 34-36.
Claim 7
Appellant contends that Baty does not disclose that “at least one first
switch is shared with at least two of said plurality of sets of second nodes” as
recited in claim 7 (App. Br. 16-17). Appellant repeats the arguments made
Appeal 2009-007091
Application 10/722,180

9
for claim 3 and further asserts that the Examiner has interpreted the recited
“sets of second nodes” inconsistently (App. Br. 16-17). The Examiner
responds by further explaining the rejection as follows:
The Examiner’s interpretation of the limitation “a switch is
shared with two sets of second nodes” is no different than that
of the Appellant’s [sic]. As Appellant’s “sharing” is used to
refer to an indirect kind of sharing (see page 5 of the Appeal
Brief, Appellant states that the first switch (240 on Fig. 14) is
shared with a first set of second nodes (230 – 236, which is
directly connected to switch 240) and a second set of second
nodes (second nodes connected to V2 192, which is indirectly
connected to the switch 240)). Thus, Appellant’s interpretation
of a switch being shared with two sets of second node is that the
switch can be used by second nodes that are directly connected
to it and also second nodes that are indirectly connected to it,
which is the same as the Examiner’s interpretation.
(Ans. 12).
Therefore, the Examiner provides a reasonable explanation of the
rejection, which remains unrebutted in the Reply Brief as Appellant does not
point to any evidence to counter the Examiner’s explanation. Appellant
argues patentability of claims 21 (App. Br. 22) and 37 (App. Br. 28) based
on substantially the same assertions made for claim 7. Accordingly, for the
reasons set forth for claim 3, supra, we sustain the rejections of claims 7, 21,
and 37.
Claim 11
We also remain unconvinced by Appellant’s contention that, in
rejecting claim 11, the Examiner has applied an overly broad interpretation
of the claim language (App. Br. 17). Such argument is unsupported by any
evidence in the Briefs and is similar to that presented for claim 1 which we
found unpersuasive as discussed supra. We further find the Examiner’s
Appeal 2009-007091
Application 10/722,180

10
explanation regarding the reading of “port” on the connections 46a and 26 to
Baty’s node 12a to be reasonable (Ans. 12; see also Spec. ¶ [0088]).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claim 11 as well as claims 29 and
41 which are similarly argued (App. Br. 23; 28-29).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11, 13-29, 31-41, 43,
and 44 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)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

babc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528