12970930 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

Ex Parte Ryan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 2016

12970930 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/970,930 12/16/2010 83579 7590 02/25/2016 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Attn: Patent Docketing 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR James Ryan 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. 0102-US-Il 7013 EXAMINER YOUNG, STEVER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2016 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): patent.docketing@level3.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES RYAN, MARCUS HADA VI, MICHAEL RENNER, JERRY COX, and JAMES DWYER Appeal2014-006473 Application 12/970,930 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). 2 We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Level 3 Communications, LLC. App. Br. 2. 2 A hearing was held in this case on February 16, 2016. Appeal2014-006473 Application 12/970,930 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention generally relates to managing a virtual local area network (VLAN) domain associated with a network. Spec. i-f 6. 3 Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method of managing a virtual local area network (VLAN) domain associated with a network, the method comprising: defining a VLAN domain comprising a list of a plurality of connectively coupled ports of the network associated with the VLAN domain; and assigning, to the VLAN domain, at least one VLAN associated with the plurality of connectively coupled ports. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ngo (US 2004/0042416 Al; published Mar. 4, 2004). ANALYSIS Appellants contend Ngo fails to teach or suggest the "defining" and "assigning" limitations as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in claim 3 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed May 29, 2013 ("Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Nov. 29, 2013 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 11, 2014 ("Ans."), Appellants' Reply Brief filed May 12, 2014 ("Reply Br."), and the original Specification filed Dec. 16, 2010 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2014-006473 Application 12/970,930 10.4 App. Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants contend Ngo does not teach defining a VLAN domain or a list of a plurality of connectively coupled ports. App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants also contend Ngo does not teach assigning a VLAN, but is instead directed to automatic discovery of VLAN configurations. App. Br. 4--5. The Examiner finds Ngo teaches a VLAN system that both provisions VLANs with corresponding ports, as well as performing automatic discovery of actual VLAN configurations. Ans. 11-12 (citing Ngo i-f 16). The Examiner also finds Appellants have overlooked parts of the Ngo reference that teach "actual VLAN provisioning (See Ngo Background- an example of network provisioning- spanning tree protocol) as well showing the provisioned VLAN to port relationship (See Ngo FIG 9-540)." Ans. 11-12. On this record, we agree with Appellants the Examiner has erred in finding Ngo anticipates claims 1 and 10. "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., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Although the Examiner finds Ngo teaches provisioning VLANs and use of the "spanning tree protocol," we agree with Appellants that the portions of Ngo cited by the Examiner do not teach defining a VLAN domain "comprising a list of a 4 Claim 10 is directed to a system for managing VLAN s in a network and recites, inter alia, a network provision module for "defining" and "assigning," which limitations are identical to the "defining" and "assigning" limitations of claim 1. In the Appeal Brief, Appellants do not expressly argue the "defining" and "assigning" limitations of claim 10. See App. Br. 5-7. In the interest of consistency of results with respect to the same claim limitations, however, we consider the arguments concerning these limitations in claim 1 in regard to claim 10. 3 Appeal2014-006473 Application 12/970,930 plurality of connectively coupled ports." The Examiner has failed to provide any persuasive reasoning or explanation of why the cited portions of Ngo teach or suggest "a list of a plurality of connectively coupled ports of the network associated with the VLAN domain," and we can discern no such teaching or suggestion. Thus, we conclude the Examiner erred in finding Ngo teaches the "defining" limitation of claims 1 and 10 and, therefore, erred in finding Ngo anticipates claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 10, as well as dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18. REVERSED 4