Ex Parte Nagapudi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2017

13157942 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 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.
13/157,942 06/10/2011 Venkatesh Nagapudi BRCD-3068. l.US.NP 8268
73257 7590 11/24/2017
PVF — Brocade Communications Systems Inc.
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 Fifth Street
Davis, CA 95618
EXAMINER
RIVAS, SALVADOR E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2017 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):
sy_incoming @parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VENKATESH NAGAPUDI and SATSHEEL B. ALTEKAR
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—21, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates generally to
network management and more specifically to end-to-end virtualization.
Spec. 13.2 The Specification explains that a “network interface residing on
an end host sets up a tunnel” and “then encapsulates a packet destined to a
virtual machine based on a tunneling protocol” to allow the “host to address
a remote virtual machine,” thus “facilitat[ing] end-to-end virtualization.”
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
1. A network interface adapter of a computing device,
comprising:
network interface circuitry configured to facilitate
the network interface adapter to reside within the
computing device;
a tunnel set-up module configured to:
set up a tunnel at the network interface adapter;
and
store within the network interface adapter a
data structure comprising a mapping between
an identifier of the tunnel and a media access
control (MAC) address; and
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed June 10, 2011; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed March 11, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed August 15,
2016; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 11, 2017; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed March 13, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
an encapsulation module configured to:
identify the tunnel from a lookup in the data
structure in response to identifying the MAC
address as a destination address of a first packet;
and
encapsulate the first packet at the network
interface adapter based on a tunneling protocol
associated with the tunnel.
App. Br. 19 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Chu et al. (“Chu”)
Andou et al. (“Andou”)
Koide et al. (“Koide”)
Adams et al. (“Adams”)
Gao et al. (“Gao”)
Choi et al. (“Choi”)
Hao et al. (“Hao”)
Karaoguz et al. (“Karaoguz”)
Eiriksson et al. (“Eiriksson”)
US 2004/0151181 Al
US 2008/0107110 Al
US 2009/0113073 Al
US 2009/0327462 Al
US 2010/0118882 Al
US 2010/0157963 Al
US 2010/0322255 Al
US 2011/0019552 Al
US 7,924,840 B1
The Rejections on Appeal
Aug. 5, 2004
May 8, 2008
Apr. 30, 2009
Dec. 31,2009
May 13,2010
June 24, 2010
Dec. 23,2010
Jan. 27, 2011
Apr. 12,2011
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gao, Choi, and Eiriksson. Final Act. 3—15.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gao, Choi, Eiriksson, and Adams. Final Act. 15—17.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gao, Choi, Eiriksson, and Karaoguz. Final Act. 17—19.
3
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gao, Choi, Eiriksson, and Andou. Final Act. 19-21.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gao, Choi, Eiriksson, Hao, and Chu. Final Act. 21—23.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gao, Choi, Eiriksson, and Koide. Final Act. 23—25.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—21 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding Examiner error.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action (Final Act.
3—25) and Answer (Ans. 3—11). We add the following to address and
emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16
“Set Up a Tunnel at the Network Interface Adapter”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 because the references do not disclose the following
limitation in claim 1 and similar limitations in the other independent claims:
“set up a tunnel at the network interface adapter.” See, e.g., App. Br. 7—8,
11; Reply Br. 7—8, 11—12. In particular, Appellants contend that: (1) Gao’s
logical interface cannot include the claimed “network interface circuitry”;
(2) Gao’s logical interface “is merely a logical endpoint of a tunnel”; and
(3) “a logical interface being a tunnel endpoint is not the same as '[setting]
up a tunnel at [a] network interface adapter.'''’'’ App. Br. 8 (citing Gao 24,
93); see Reply Br. 7—8, 11—12. In addition, Appellants contend that
4
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
Eiriksson’s network interface circuitry “does not process tunnel packets, and
therefore, is not the same a network interface adapter, which ‘resides within
[a] computing device'' and ‘[sets] up a tunnel at the network interface
adapter.'1'’'’ App. Br. 10 (citing Eiriksson 2:10-15, 10:50-54); see Reply
Br. 8.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because,
as the Examiner points out, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by
attacking the references individually where a rejection rests on a
combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Ans. 9. “[T]he test for combining references is not
what the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the
combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA
1971). Appellants do not address “what the combination of disclosures
taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art” and,
therefore, have not demonstrated Examiner error. See App. Br. 7—11; Reply
Br. 6-11.
Further, the Examiner finds that Gao teaches a packet-transmission
device that sets up a tunnel and includes a logical interface for sending and
receiving tunnel packets. See Final Act. 3, 6, 14; Ans. 3, 9-10. More
specifically, Gao discloses “tunneling technologies” and a packet-
transmission device that establishes a bidirectional tunnel and includes a
logical interface that “operate[s] in bridge mode” to send and receive tunnel
packets. Gao 1, 12—14, 24, 70, 76—78, Fig. 4 (steps 401 and 402),
Figs. 6—8.
5
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
The Examiner also finds that Eiriksson teaches network interface
circuitry that facilitates a network interface adapter to reside within a
computing device. Final Act. 5—6; see Ans. 5, 9-10. For instance, Eiriksson
describes “network interface circuitry” embodied in “network interface cards
and/or network interface controllers” for “connect[ing] a network and a host
computer.” Eiriksson 2:10—13. Eiriksson Figure 4 shows network interface
circuitry 500 with (1) Ethernet ports 510a and 510b for sending and
receiving packets via a network and (2) a bus connected to a host computer.
Id. Fig. 4; see id. 1:18, 2:10-15, 6:32, 9:13-18.
The combination of disclosures in Gao and Eiriksson taken as a whole
teaches or suggests “set up a tunnel at the network interface adapter.” See,
e.g., Final Act. 3—6, 10—14; Ans. 3—5, 8—10; see also Gao 14, 24, 37, 70,
76—78, 93—94, Fig. 4 (step 401), Figs. 6—8; Eiriksson 2:10-15, Fig. 3
(interface device 100), Fig. 4 (network interface circuitry 500), Fig. 5
(illustrating operation of network interface circuitry 500).
Appellants incorrectly contend that Eiriksson’s network interface
circuitry “does not process tunnel packets.” App. Br. 10, 12; Reply Br. 8,
10. Eiriksson Figure 5 depicts packet processing steps for network interface
circuitry according to Figure 4. Eiriksson 9:35—36, 10:33—36, Figs. 4—5. In
particular, Figure 5 shows processing steps after the network interface
circuitry receives a layer-2 packet. Id. at 10:29-31, Fig. 5. At step 510, the
network interface circuitry determines the packet type. Id. at 10:40—54. If
“the layer-2 packet is a tunnel packet,” the network interface circuitry
provides the packet “to the host [computer] without substantial protocol
processing.” Id. at 10:50-54. Contrary to Appellants contention,
Eiriksson’s network interface circuitry does not disregard tunnel packets but
6
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
instead processes them with some steps that differ from the processing of
other packet types. Id. at 10:40-58, Fig. 5 (showing steps 520 and 522 for
tunnel packets and steps 512, 514, 516, 518, 524, and 526 for other packet
types).
Appellants seek to distinguish the references by asserting that
“‘circuitry’ is a term indicating a physical device by those of ordinary skill
in the art.” Reply Br. 10. But Appellants cite no evidence supporting that
assertion. Id. Further, that assertion conflicts with the Specification’s
explanation that the features described in it “can be implemented in the
hardware ... of a network interface card, or implemented in the software
that drives the network interface card,” e.g., “as code and/or data . . . stored
in a computer-readable nontransitory storage medium.” Spec, 67, 70.
“Encapsulate the First Packet at the Network Interface Adapter
Based on a Tunneling Protocol Associated with the Tunnel”
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 because the references do not disclose the following
limitation in claim 1 and similar limitations in the other independent claims:
“encapsulate the first packet at the network interface adapter based on a
tunneling protocol associated with the tunnel.” See, e.g., App. Br. 8—9; see
also Reply Br. 7—8. More specifically, Appellants assert that Gao does not
teach or suggest packet encapsulation according to the claims because Gao’s
logical interface “is a tunnel endpoint” and “a packet is not encapsulated at”
Gao’s logical interface. App. Br. 9 (citing Gao H 24, 70).
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the combination of disclosures in Gao and Eiriksson taken as a whole
teaches or suggests packet encapsulation according to the claims. See, e.g.,
7
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
Final Act. 3—6, 10-14; Ans. 3—5, 8—10. As discussed above, the Examiner
finds that Eiriksson teaches network interface circuitry according to the
claims. Final Act. 5—6, 13—14; Ans. 4—5, 8—10; see Eiriksson 2:10-15,
Fig. 3 (interface device 100), Fig. 4 (network interface circuitry 500), Fig. 5
(illustrating operation of network interface circuitry 500). The Examiner
also finds that Gao’s packet-transmission device encapsulates layer-2
packets with “protocol type information” to form tunnel packets and “sends
the tunnel packets” through the previously established tunnel. Final Act. 4;
Ans. 3—4, 6—7; see Gao Tflf 14, 70, 76—78, Fig. 4 (steps 401 and 402),
Figs. 6—8. Gao’s device establishes a bidirectional tunnel and configures the
logical interface to operate as a layer-2 port for sending and receiving
packets. Gao 8—10, 37, 70, 93—94, Fig. 4 (steps 401, 402, and 403),
Figs. 6—8; see Ans. 3—4, 8—9; Reply Br. 8 (citing Gao Tflf 4, 37).
“Store Within the Network Interface Adapter a Data Structure”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 because the references do not disclose the following
limitation in claim 1 and similar limitations in the other independent claims:
“store within the network interface adapter a data structure.” See, e.g., App.
Br. 7—11; Reply Br. 11—12. In particular, Appellants contend that “Choi
merely discloses a gateway switch” including (1) an “interface unit” that
sends and receives packets and (2) a “tunnel management unit” with a
tunnel-management-and-mapping table. App. Br. 9 (citing Choi 111).
Appellants then seek to distinguish the claims from Choi by asserting that
Choi’s mapping table “is not ‘stored within the network interface adapter.’”
Id.
8
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner relies on Eiriksson, rather than Choi, for disclosing a data
structure stored in a network interface adapter. Final Act. 5—6, 13; Ans. 4—5,
10. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Eiriksson teaches network
interface circuitry with a physical memory storing a data structure. Final
Act. 5—6, 13; Ans. 4—5, 10. For example, Eiriksson Figure 3 depicts flow-
processor architecture for interface device 100 that, among other things,
receives “packets from the physical wire of the network” and includes a
“lookup database” implemented with a TCAM (Ternary Content-
Addressable Memory). Eiriksson 7:28—32, 8:4—6, Fig. 3; see Ans. 4—5, 10;
see also Final Act. 6, 13.
“Identify the Tunnel from a Lookup in the Data Structure”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 because the references do not disclose the following
limitation in claim 1 and similar limitations in the other independent claims:
“identity the tunnel from a lookup in the data structure.” See, e.g., App.
Br. 7—11; Reply Br. 6—11. In particular, Appellants contend that Choi does
not teach tunnel identification according to the claims because Choi’s
“tunnel management unit” allocates a tunnel for a packet rather than Choi’s
“interface unit.” App. Br. 9—10 (citing Choi 111).
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
Choi teaches tunnel identification according to the claims. Final Act. 5;
Ans. 4. Choi’s “tunnel management unit” uses information in a tunnel-
management-and-mapping table to “allocate[] a tunnel for
transmitting/receiving a packet.” Choi 111; see id. ]Hf 28—29. Choi’s
mapping table includes tunnel identifiers for all current tunnels and MAC
9
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
addresses for the devices at each end of each current tunnel. Id. Figs. 4a-4d;
see id. 142. That Choi’s mapping table resides in the “tunnel management
unit” instead of the “interface unit” does not demonstrate Examiner error
because the Examiner relies on Eiriksson rather than Choi for disclosing a
data structure stored in a network interface adapter. Final Act. 5—6, 13;
Ans. 4—5, 10.
The Propriety of Combining the References
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 because the “Examiner has attributed principles of
operation to the Gao cited art that are not disclosed in Choi and Eiriksson.”
App. Br. 11—12; see Reply Br. 8—10. Appellants assert that Eiriksson’s
network interface circuitry “does not process tunnel packets” and, therefore,
the Gao-Eiriksson combination “does not teach [the] processing of tunnel
packets at the network interface.” App. Br. 12. Appellants contend that
incorporating Eiriksson’s teaching into Gao “is contradictory to the
teachings of Eiriksson” because Eiriksson’s network interface circuitry
“does not process tunnel packets.” Reply Br. 8, 10.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because,
as explained above, they rest on the incorrect contention that Eiriksson’s
network interface circuitry “does not process tunnel packets.” See App.
Br. 10, 12; Reply Br. 8, 10; see also Eiriksson 10:40-58, Fig. 5 (showing
steps 520 and 522 for tunnel packets and steps 512, 514, 516, 518, 524, and
526 for other packet types).
Appellants assert that the Examiner has not explained how Choi’s
mapping table “would be included in” Eiriksson’s data structure without
“[changing] the principle of operation of the primary reference or
10
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
[rendering] the reference inoperable for its intended purpose.” App. Br.
12—13 (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2145.Ill);
see Reply Br. 9—10. But the Examiner does not propose combining Choi’s
mapping table with Eiriksson’s data structure. See Final Act. 5, 10, 14;
Ans. 5, 10—11. Instead, the Examiner proposes combining Choi’s mapping
table with Gao’s packet-transmission device that sets up a tunnel,
encapsulates layer-2 packets to form tunnel packets, and uses a logical
interface to send and receive tunnel packets. See Final Act. 5, 10,; Ans. 5,
10-11.
Appellants contend that the “Examiner has not shown how and why
the operations of the computing device of Gao would be transferred to”
Eiriksson’s network interface circuitry. Reply Br. 9. But that contention
does not respond to the rejection because the Examiner relies on Gao as the
primary reference and Eiriksson as a secondary reference. Final Act. 3—6;
see Ans. 5, 10-11.
Appellants have not explained how adapting Choi’s teachings or
Eiriksson’s teachings to Gao would change Gao’s principle of operation.
App. Br. 11-13 ; see Reply Br. 8—11. Thus, Appellants have not established
Examiner error.
Summary for Independent Claims 1,8, and 15
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 15 for
obviousness based on Gao, Choi, and Eiriksson. Hence, we sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15.
11
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
Dependent Claims 2,9, and 16
Claims 2, 9, and 16 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, and
require that the data structure’s tunnel identifier “identifies the tunnel from a
plurality of tunnels.” App. Br. 19, 21—22. Appellants contend that the
Examiner erred in rejecting these dependent claims because Choi “merely
discloses a tunnel allocation,” i.e., “[allocating] a tunnel for
transmitting/receiving a packet by using information included in the tunnel
mapping and management table.’ '' Id. at 13 (quoting Choi 111).
We disagree. Choi does not “merely disclose[] a tunnel allocation.”
Appellants overlook the Examiner’s reliance on Choi Figures 4a-4d. Final
Act. 4—5, 8, 11—12, 15; Ans. 4, 8, 10. Figures 4a-4d illustrate mapping
tables including tunnel identifiers for a plurality of tunnels. Choi Figs.
4a-4d; see id. Tflf 16, 42^44, Fig. 1 (Tunnel #1, Tunnel #2, Tunnel #3, etc.).
The combination of prior-art disclosures taken as a whole teaches or
suggests each limitation in dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 and in the
respective independent claims. See, e.g., Final Act. 3—15; Ans. 3—5, 10—11.
Hence, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 3, 10, and 17
Claims 3,10, and 17 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively,
and specify that the data structure’s MAC address “is a virtual MAC address
assigned to a virtual machine.” App. Br. 19, 21—22. Appellants contend that
the Examiner erred in rejecting these dependent claims because (1) “Adams
merely discloses a virtual MAC address” and (2) “the combination of Gao,
Choi, and Eiriksson does not disclose a mapping of a MAC address in a data
structure stored in a network interface adapter.” Id. at 14.
12
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
We disagree. The combination of Gao, Choi, and Eiriksson teaches
or suggests a mapping of a MAC address in a data structure stored in a
network interface adapter. See, e.g., Final Act. 4—6, 11—13; Ans. 3—5, 7—8.
As explained above, Eiriksson discloses a data structure sored in a network
interface adapter. See, e.g., Final Act. 5—6, 13; Ans. 4—5, 10; see also
Eiriksson 7:28—32, 8:4—6, Fig. 3 (interface device 100 including a lookup
database implemented with a TCAM). Choi teaches a data stmcture
including a mapping between a tunnel identifier and a MAC address. See,
e.g., Final Act. 4—5, 11—12; Ans. 4, 7—8; see also Choi Ull, 28—29, 42,
Figs. 4a-4d; App. Br. 12—13 (citing Choi 142).
The combination of prior-art disclosures taken as a whole teaches
or suggests each limitation in dependent claims 3,10, and 17 and in the
respective independent claims. See, e.g., Final Act. 3—14, 16—17; Ans. 3—5,
7—8, 10-11; see also Adams 116. Hence, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection
of claims 3,10, and 17.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 4, 11, and 18
Claims 4, 11, and 18 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively,
and require that “the first packet further includes a virtual local area network
(VFAN) tag.” App. Br. 19, 21—22. Appellants contend that the Examiner
erred in rejecting these dependent claims because (1) “Karaoguz merely
discloses a packet with a VFAN tag” and (2) “the combination of Gao, Choi,
and Eiriksson does not disclose encapsulating a packet at a network interface
adapter.” Id. at 14—15.
We disagree. As explained above, the combination of Gao, Choi, and
Eiriksson teaches or suggests encapsulating a packet at a network interface
adapter. See, e.g., Final Act. 3—6, 10-14; Ans. 3—7, 9-11.
13
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
The combination of prior-art disclosures taken as a whole teaches or
suggests each limitation in dependent claims 4,11, and 18 and in the
respective independent claims. See, e.g., Final Act. 3—14, 18—19; Ans. 3—7,
9-11; see also Karaoguz 144, Fig. 3 A; Eiriksson 10:25—28; Choi 142,
Figs. 4a-4d (depicting VLAN ID or VID). Hence, we sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 5, 12, and 19
Claims 5, 12, and 19 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively,
and specify that the data structure’s tunnel identifier “is one or more of:
a multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) label, an Internet Protocol (IP)
address, and a generic routing encapsulation (GRE) key.” App. Br. 20-22.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting these dependent
claims because (1) “Andou merely discloses a GRE key” and (2) “the
combination of Gao, Choi, and Eiriksson does not disclose a mapping of an
identifier, which identifies a tunnel, in a data structure stored in a network
interface adapter.” Id. at 15.
We disagree. The combination of Gao, Choi, and Eiriksson teaches or
suggests a mapping of a tunnel identifier in a data structure stored in a
network interface adapter. See, e.g., Final Act. 3—6, 10—14; Ans. 3—5, 7—8.
As explained above, Eiriksson discloses a data structure stored in a network
interface adapter. See, e.g., Final Act. 5—6, 13; Ans. 4—5, 10; see also
Eiriksson 7:28—32, 8:4—6, Fig. 3 (interface device 100 including a lookup
database implemented with a TCAM). Choi teaches a data structure
including a mapping between a tunnel identifier and a MAC address. See,
e.g., Final Act. 4—5, 11—12; Ans. 4, 7—8; see also Choi Ull, 28—29, 42,
Figs. 4a-4d; App. Br. 12—13 (citing Choi 142).
14
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
The combination of prior-art disclosures taken as a whole teaches or
suggests each limitation in dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 and in the
respective independent claims. See, e.g., Final Act. 3—14, 19-21; Ans. 3—5,
7—8, 10-11; see also Andou 1 61, Fig. 5; Choi Tflf 37, 70. Hence, we sustain
the § 103(a) rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 6, 13, and 20
Claims 6, 13, and 20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively,
and require “encapsulating] the first packet with an inner end-to-end label
and an outer hop-by-hop label.” App. Br. 20-22. Appellants contend that
the Examiner erred in rejecting these dependent claims because (1) “Chu
merely discloses Exterior and Interior Labels of an LSP” and (2) Chu’s
labels “are not the same as encapsulating the first packet ‘with an inner end-
to-end label and an outer hop-by-hop label.”'1 Id. at 16.
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
Chu discloses (1) an interior MPLS label associated with an ingress node
and an egress node, (2) an exterior MPLS label associated with the two
endpoints of a node-to-node path, and (3) encapsulating a packet with both
labels. Chu H 31, 33—34; see Final Act. 23. Chu instructs that transit nodes
between the ingress node and the egress node do not act upon the interior
MPLS label. Id. 133. Consequently, Chu teaches or suggests encapsulating
a packet with an inner (interior) end-to-end label and an outer (exterior) hop-
by-hop label.
Further, the Examiner relies on Chu together with Hao to reject
claims 6, 13, and 20. See Final Act. 21—23. But Appellants’ contentions do
not address Hao. App. Br. 16. For this reason too, Appellants’ contentions
do not persuade us of Examiner error.
15
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
The combination of prior-art disclosures taken as a whole teaches
or suggests each limitation in dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 and in the
respective independent claims. See, e.g., Final Act. 3—14, 21—23; Ans. 3—7,
10-11; see also Hao 120, Fig. 1; ChuTflf 10, 31, 33—34, Fig. 11A. Hence,
we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 6, 13, and 20.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 7, 14, and 21
Claims 7, 14, and 21 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively,
and require “decapsulat[ing] a second packet encapsulated based on the
tunneling protocol.” App. Br. 20—22. Appellants contend that the Examiner
erred in rejecting these dependent claims because (1) “Koide merely
discloses decapsulating a network layer packet” and (2) “the combination of
Gao, Choi, and Eiriksson does not disclose encapsulating (or decapsulating)
a packet at a network interface adapter.” Id. at 16—17.
We disagree. As explained above, the combination of Gao, Choi, and
Eiriksson teaches or suggests encapsulating a packet at a network interface
adapter. See, e.g., Final Act. 3—6, 10-14; Ans. 3—7, 10—11. The
combination also teaches or suggests decapsulating a packet at a network
interface adapter. See, e.g., Gao Tflf 17, 70-71, 76—83, Fig. 4 (step 403),
Figs. 6—8; Eiriksson 2:10-15, Fig. 3 (interface device 100), Fig. 4 (network
interface circuitry 500), Fig. 5 (illustrating operation of network interface
circuitry 500).
The combination of prior-art disclosures taken as a whole teaches
or suggests each limitation in dependent claims 7, 14, and 21 and in the
respective independent claims. See, e.g., Final Act. 3—14, 24—25; Ans. 3—7,
10-11; see also Koide 50, 53, Fig. 3. Hence, we sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 7, 14, and 21.
16
Appeal 2017-006583
Application 13/157,942
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
17