Ex Parte Parsa et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2019

14541477 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/541,477
109858 7590
ADELILLP
11859 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 408
11/14/2014
05/07/2019
Los Angeles, CA 90025
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mike Parsa
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Nl59.0l (NCRA.P0290) 1486
EXAMINER
CAIRNS, THOMAS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2019 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):
ipadmin@vmware.com
mail@adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKE PARSA, JAY ANT JAIN, XINHUA HONG,
ANIRBAN SENGUPTA, and KAI-WEI FAN 1
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITT A, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Nicira, Inc. ("Appellant") is the Applicant, as provided for under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.46, and is also identified in the Brief as the real party in interest.
See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to distributing data
flows for processing. Spec. Abstract. 2 The flows are distributed to different
logical networks to virtual machines arranged in clusters. Id. ,r,r 188, 191.
Exemplary Claim
1. For a network comprising a plurality of host computers,
each host computer executing a managed physical switching
element (MPSE) and a managed physical routing element
(MPRE) that implements at least one logical network along with
an MPSE and MPRE executing on another host computer, a
method comprising:
distributing different sets of flows entering or exiting
different logical networks to service virtual machines (SVMs) of
different SVM edge clusters that perform a set of services on the
sets of flows for the different logical networks, wherein each
flow is assigned to one SVM in the SVM edge cluster of the
flow' s logical network and each SVM is assigned to perform
stateful processing for at least one flow, at least one SVM
executing on a same host computer as a compute virtual machine
that is a destination of at least one flow; and
performing the stateful processing for the sets of flows at
the SVM clusters according to the assignment of the flows.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jagadish (US 2014/0301388 Al; published Oct. 9, 2014)
and Nilakantan (US 7,724,670 B2; issued May 25, 2010). Final Act. 3-12.
2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant's Specification (Spec.) filed
November 14, 2014; (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed
September 5, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed March 29, 2018;
(4) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed May 14, 2018; and (5) the Reply
Brief (Reply Br.) filed July 16, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Jagadish, Nilakantan, and Schein (US 2006/0176882 Al; published
Aug. 10, 2006). Id. at 12-13.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Jagadish, Nilakantan, and Mehta (US 2015/0146539 Al; published
May 28, 2015). Id. at 13-14.
Claims 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jagadish, Nilakantan, and Goyal (US 2016/0028855 Al;
published Jan. 28, 2016). Id. at 14--18.
Claims 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jagadish, Nilakantan, Goyal, and Mehta. Id. at 19-20.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Jagadish, Nilakantan, Mehta, and Schein. Id. at 21.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 9, and 15
Preamble
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding J agadish teaches
"each host computer executing a managed physical switching element
(MPSE) and a managed physical routing element (MPRE) that implements
at least one logical network along with an MPSE and MPRE executing on
another host computer," as recited in the preamble of claim 1 and similarly
recited in the preambles of claims 9 and 15. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6-7.
3
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner "did not give any patentable
weight to the limitations recited in the preamble" but should have because
those limitations "place structural limitations on at least the host
computers ... and provide ... context for interpreting the claimed logical
network." Reply Br. 6-7; see App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred by "not giv[ing] any
patentable weight to the limitations recited in the preamble." Reply Br. 6-7;
see App. Br. 11. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the preamble is
non-limiting because the limitations recited in the body of the claims are
divorced from the elements recited in the preamble. Ans. 8. The preamble
recites "each host computer" and "another host computer" execute MPSEs
and MPREs to implement "at least one logical network," but none of those
elements is later referenced in the body of the claims. In particular, the
processes recited in the body of the claims do not recite that their
performance is provided by the preamble's host computers executing
MPSEs and MPREs over the preamble's at least one logical network. For
example, claim 1 recites "distributing different sets of flows" and
"performing the stateful processing for the sets of flows," but the claim does
not recite that host computers perform those steps. Further, although the
preamble recites "at least one logical network," that element is not referred
to by any of the limitations recited in the body of claims. Instead, the
limitations in the body of the claims recite "different logical networks"
( claim 1) and "a logical network" ( claims 9, 15), which do not refer to the
"at least one logical network" recited in the preamble. Thus, we are
unpersuaded that "the claimed logical network is described in the preamble."
App. Br. 13. Accordingly, the elements recited in the preamble do not serve
4
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
to limit the claimed invention, and, thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error.
"logical networks"
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding J agadish teaches
"distributing ... sets of flows entering or exiting ... logical networks to
service virtual machines (SVMs) of ... SVM edge clusters that perform a
set of services on the sets of flows for the ... logical networks," as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 15. App. Br. 11-13; Reply
Br. 7-8. Specifically, Appellant argues the "[l]ogically-grouped servers"
described by Jagadish "are not equivalent to the claimed logical networks
implemented by MPS Es and MPREs executing on the host computers of the
network." Reply Br. 8; see App. Br. 12-13. Appellant further argues,
"Jagadish discuss[es] the functionality of the servers and the possible
services that the appliance can provide, however none of the discussion
relates to providing a service to network traffic that is entering or exiting a
logical network." App. Br. 12.
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner's finding that
Jagadish's networking of "logically-grouped servers 106," i.e., "a server
farm 38" (Jagadish ,r 66 (emphases omitted); see id. ,r 67) teaches "logical
networks" (Final Act. 4; Ans. 11; see Ans. 5-7). We further agree with the
Examiner's finding that J agadish' s description of "load balancing or traffic
flow distribution" (Jagadish ,r 253) to its "servers 106 in responding to
requests from clients 102" (Jagadish ,r 78 ( emphases omitted); see Jagadish
,r,r 68-70) teaches "sets of flows entering or exiting" the server farm's
5
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
logical networks and "perform[ing] a set of services on the sets of flows"
(Final Act. 4; see Ans. 6).
Appellant's argument that Jagadish's "[l]ogically-grouped servers are
not equivalent to the claimed logical networks implemented by MPSEs and
MPREs executing on the host computers of the network" (Reply Br. 8; see
App. Br. 12-13) is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. As
discussed above, although the preamble recites that host computers
executing MPSE and MPREs implement "at least one logical network," the
body does not refer to the preamble's "at least one logical network" and
instead introduces other networks, i.e., "different logical networks" ( claim 1)
or "a logical network" ( claims 9, 15). That is, the "at least one logical
network" implemented by the host computers executing MPSEs and MPREs
recited in the preamble does not limit or define the logical networks recited
in the body of the claims, i.e., "different logical networks" and "a logical
network." And the claimed "different logical networks" and "a logical
network" do not include limitations requiring their implementation by host
computers executing MPSEs and MPREs. Furthermore, the Specification
does not define "logical networks," let alone define logical networks as
networks implemented by host computers executing MPSEs and MPREs.
As such, the "different logical networks" and the "logical network" recited
in the body of the claims do not require the features Appellant alleges.
Thus, Jagadish's "interconnect[ions] using a wide-area network (WAN)
connection or medium-area network (MAN) connection" of its server farms,
i.e., "logically-grouped servers 106" (Jagadish ,r,r 66-68) (emphasis
omitted), teach "logical networks" within the meaning of the claims.
6
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
Further, we disagree with Appellant's argument that "Jagadish [has]
nothing to do with providing services for flows entering and exiting logical
networks." App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). As the Examiner points out
(Final Act. 4 ), in J agadish, a "client 102 communicates with [a] server 106
in the farm 38 through a network 104. Over the network 104, the client 102
can, for example, request execution of various applications hosted by the
servers 106a-106n in the farm 38 and receive output of the results of the
application execution" (Jagadish ,r 69) ( emphases omitted). Appellant
provides no persuasive argument or evidence why Jagadish's server
responses to client requests over a network do not teach "perform[ing] a set
of services on the sets of flows" that are entering or exiting logical networks.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Jagadish teaches "distributing ... sets of flows entering or exiting ... logical
networks to service virtual machines (SVMs) of ... SVM edge clusters that
perform a set of services on the sets of flows for the ... logical networks,"
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 15.
"different SVM edge clustersl] . .. different logical networks"
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding J agadish teaches
different sets of flows entering or exiting different logical
networks to service virtual machines (SVMs) of different SVM
edge clusters that perform a set of services on the sets of flows
for the different logical networks, wherein each flow is assigned
to one SVM in the SVM edge cluster of the flow' s logical
network,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-5. Specifically, Appellant
argues that the Examiner "ignore[ s] the claim language of 'the SVM cluster
of the flow's logical network"' and that "[n]o association is identified
7
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
between a particular SVM cluster and the particular logical network which
the flow is entering or exiting." App. Br. 9 ( emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 5.
Appellant further argues the Examiner "is using the same element (i.e., a
server group) to disclose both the edge service VM cluster and the logical
network that the edge SVM cluster provides a service for." App. Br. 10.
Still further, Appellant argues the Examiner "fail[s] to address the
existence of different logical networks, different SVM clusters, or the
limitation that different SVM edge clusters perform a set of services on the
sets of flows for the different logical networks." App. Br. 10; see Reply
Br. 4. Even further, Appellant argues Jagadish's "virtual machines do not
provide services for flows, rather they manage and configure virtual
machines." Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
J agadish' s description of "host server[ s] executing one or more hypervisors
creating a virtual machine platform" teaches "service virtual machines
(SVMs)." Final Act. 5 (citing Jagadish ,r,r 165-166 ("a computing device
100 includes a hypervisor" executing a "at least one virtual machine")
(emphases omitted), Fig. 4a); see Ans. 5; see also Jagadish ,r 96 ("computing
device 100 useful for practicing an embodiment of the ... server 106")
(emphases omitted). We also agree with the Examiner's finding that
Jagadish's "plurality of server farms," i.e., different "server farm[s] 38" of
"logically-grouped servers" (Jagadish ,r,r 66-67) (emphasis omitted), teaches
"different SVM edge clusters" having respective "different logical
networks" (Ans. 6; Final Act. 4).
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner provides "[n]o
association ... between a particular SVM cluster and the particular logical
8
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
network which the flow is entering or exiting" (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5) and
"us[ es] the same element (i.e., a server group) to disclose both the edge
service VM cluster and the logical network that the edge SVM cluster
provides a service for" (App. Br. 10) do not persuade us the Examiner erred.
As Appellant points out, Jagadish's "logically-grouped servers of the server
farm may be interconnected using a wide area network." App. Br. 12 (citing
Jagadish ,r 67). That is, Jagadish's server farms, i.e.,
"logically-grouped servers" are "interconnected using a wide-area network
(WAN) connection or medium-area network (MAN) connection" (Jagadish
,r,r 66-67). As such, the server farms described by Jagadish teach SVM edge
clusters. Further, the servers in server farms are networked together, and so
the network interconnecting the servers teaches the server farm's associated
"logical network" receiving flows. And because Jagadish describes multiple
server farms, it follows that each of the plurality of server farms has a
respective logical network interconnecting its logically grouped servers. As
such, we are not persuaded that Jagadish fails to teach "different logical
networks [and] different SVM clusters." App. Br. 10. Still further, as
discussed above, because J agadish' s "servers 106 ... respond[] to requests
from clients 102" (Jagadish ,r 78 ( emphases omitted); see Jagadish
,r,r 68-70), we are not persuaded that Jagadish fails to teach "perform[ing] a
set of services on the sets of flows" (App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 4).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
J agadish teaches
different sets of flows entering or exiting different logical
networks to service virtual machines (SVMs) of different SVM
edge clusters that perform a set of services on the sets of flows
for the different logical networks, wherein each flow is assigned
9
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
to one SVM in the SVM edge cluster of the flow' s logical
network,
as recited in claim 1.
Claim 9
"an owner SVM"
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding J agadish teaches
"identifying a flow of the packet and an owner SVM of the flow ...
forwarding the packet to a second SVM that is different than the first SVM
when the second SVM is the owner SVM," as recited in claim 9. App.
Br. 13-15. Specifically, Appellant argues Jagadish is "silent as to the notion
of ownership or anything analogous thereto." Id. at 14.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Ans. 14; Final Act. 9-
10), and we agree, that Jagadish's description of a first "server 106a
receiv[ing] requests from the client 102," i.e., flows, and "forward[ing] the
requests to a second server 106b" which "respon[ ds] to the request"
(Jagadish ,r 70) (emphases omitted) teaches "identifying a flow of the packet
and an owner SVM of the flow ... forwarding the packet to a second SVM
that is different than the first SVM when the second SVM is the owner
SVM."
We disagree with Appellant's argument that Jagadish is "silent as to
the notion of ownership or anything analogous thereto." App. Br. 14. The
Specification describes "a node that is assigned to handle a particular flow is
referred to as the owner node of the flow." Spec. ,r 52. In accordance with
that description, J agadish' s second server 106b, assigned to respond to a
client request by server 106a (see Jagadish ,r 70), teaches an owner of the
client request flow.
10
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
Additionally, because Jagadish's server teaches an owner of a flow,
we need not address Appellant's argument that J agadish' s "interface master"
does not teach the owner of a flow. Reply Br. 9 ( citing Jagadish ,r 252).
Furthermore, Appellant's argument discussing J agadish' s interface master
addresses limitations brought up for the first time in the Reply Brief,
namely, "the first SVM is selected from the plurality of SVMs according to
an equal cost multiple path (ECMP) algorithm." Id. (Jagadish's "'interface
master' does not disclose the first SVM selected from the plurality of SVMs
in the edge cluster according to an ECMP algorithm"). This argument is
untimely and is therefore waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2); see Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative); see also
McBride v. Merrell Dow and Pharms., Inc., 800 F.2d 1208, 1211 (D.C. Cir.
1986) (internal citations omitted).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Jagadish teaches "identifying a flow of the packet and an owner SVM of the
flow ... forwarding the packet to a second SVM that is different than the
first SVM when the second SVM is the owner SVM," as recited in claim 9.
Claim 15
"a first service is provided by a first set of SVMs "
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding J agadish teaches
providing stateful services at an edge cluster of service
virtual machine (SVM), wherein a first service is provided by a
first set of SVMs in the cluster and a second service is provided
by a second set of SVMs in the cluster;
distributing a first set of flows that are entering or exiting
a logical network and that require the first service to the first set
ofSVMs ... and
11
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
distributing a second set of flows that are entering or
exiting a logical network and that require the second service to
the second set of SVMs,
as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 10. Specifically,
Appellant argues the Examiner "fails to identify any single SVM cluster that
is divided into sets of SVMs that provide different services and that
distributes flows entering or exiting a logical network to SVMs in the
different sets of SVMs based on the service required by the flow." App.
Br. 15-16. Appellant further argues "multiple appliance clusters that
provide different services to different servers are not equivalent to a single
SVM edge cluster that has multiple sets of SVMs that provide different
services and have flows requiring the different services distributed to the
SVM sets according to the required service." Reply Br. 10.
We are not persuaded of error because Appellant's arguments do not
persuasively address the Examiner's findings and do not address the
disclosures in Jagadish the Examiner relies on. As the Examiner points out,
Jagadish describes a "client communicating directly with a server or via
appliance for executing an application hosted on the server." Final Act. 15
(citing Jagadish ,r 69). Jagadish details that a "client 102 can, for example,
request execution of various applications hosted by the servers 106a-106n,"
i.e., first and second SVMs performing respective services, "in the farm 38,"
i.e., an SVM cluster. Jagadish ,r 69 (emphasis omitted). Furthermore, as the
Examiner also points out (Ans. 14), Jagadish further details that client
requests are "forward[ ed] ... to a second server 106b [which] ... responds
to the request" (Jagadish ,r 70) ( emphasis omitted), i.e., distributes flows to
corresponding SVMs.
12
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
J agadish teaches
providing stateful services at an edge cluster of service
virtual machine (SVM), wherein a first service is provided by a
first set of SVMs in the cluster and a second service is provided
by a second set of SVMs in the cluster;
distributing a first set of flows that are entering or exiting
a logical network and that require the first service to the first set
ofSVMs ... and
distributing a second set of flows that are entering or
exiting a logical network and that require the second service to
the second set of SVMs,
as recited in claim 15.
Improper Combination
Appellant contends the Examiner erred by improperly combining
Jagadish and Nilakantan to reject claims 1, 9, and 15. App. Br. 16-17.
Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner's stated
Id.
motivation fails to address the features of the service virtual
machine clusters recited in the independent claims such as (1)
different SVM clusters for different logical networks, (2)
redirecting a packet within an SVM cluster based on flow
ownership, and (3) multiple sets of SVMs in a single SVM
cluster that provide different services at the edge of a logical
network.
We are not persuaded of error. Appellant's argument does not explain
why the Examiner's stated motivation does not support the combination and,
instead, argues the stated "motivation fails to address" features recited in the
claims. See id. However, the Examiner does not rely on that stated
motivation to teach the features recited in the claims; rather, the Examiner's
13
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
motivation sets forth the reason to combine the references. Ans. 17; see
Final Act. 5.
Furthermore, to the extent Appellant argues the Examiner's
combination is improper because it is based on a "piecemeal, hindsight"
combination of references (see App. Br. passim), Appellant has not
persuasively explained or elaborated on how the Examiner engages in
"piecemeal, hindsight" reconstruction of the claims or why the Examiner's
motivation does not adequately support the combination. Upon our review
of the Examiner's analysis, we are not persuaded.
Additionally, Appellant's arguments that the Examiner's "stated
motivation for combining Jagadish and Nilakantan ... is not relevant to
Jagadish" (Reply Br. 11) were brought up for the first time in the Reply
Brief. As discussed above, Appellant's argument in the Appeal Brief
addressing the Examiner's motivation did not argue the motivation was
improper but instead argued the motivation did not teach certain features
recited in the claims. See App. Br. 16-17. In the Reply Brief, Appellant
presents new arguments that the Examiner's motivation is "not relevant."
Reply Br. 11. Therefore, the Reply Brief arguments are untimely and are
therefore waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2); see McBride, 800 F.2d at
1211 (internal citations omitted); see also Borden, 93 USPQ2d at 1474
(informative).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-2 0.
14
Appeal2018-007543
Application 14/541,477
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
15