Ex Parte Shukla et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 2017

12976200 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 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.
12/976,200 12/22/2010 Amit SHUKLA JUNI-078/00US 6996
108200-2120
83463 7590 01/13/2017
Juniper Networks, Inc.
c/o Cooley LLP
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
EXAMINER
CHAU, PETER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2017 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):
zPatDCDocketing@cooley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT SHUKLA and RONAK SHAH
Appeal 2016-002297
Application 12/976,200
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-002297
Application 12/976,200
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—11 and 13—21. Claim 12 is indicated to be allowable. We have
jurisdiction over the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to aggregate Fibre Channel over Ethernet
(“FCoE”) filter rules of a single interface in a single or few rules on a first-
hop FCoE networking element. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus implemented in at least one of a memory or a
processing device, comprising:
a filter module configured to receive a plurality of Media
Access Control (MAC) addresses associated with a plurality of
virtual ports instantiated at a first network device, each virtual
port from the plurality of virtual ports being associated with a
MAC address from the plurality of MAC addresses, the filter
module configured to define a filter to be applied to a data frame
sent between the first network device and a network switch, the
filter being based at least in part on a common MAC address
portion included in each MAC address from the plurality of
MAC addresses and having the same value for each MAC
address from the plurality of MAC addresses, the common MAC
address portion having a length of greater than 24 bits, the
common MAC address portion to include an identifier uniquely
associated with a second network device at which the filter
module operates.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gable et al. US 4,550,402 Oct. 29, 1985
Flanders et al. US 6,041,058 Mar. 21, 2000
2
Appeal 2016-002297
Application 12/976,200
Krishnan et al.
Bush et al.
Gai et al.
Snively et al.
Snively et al.
Dropps et al.
Furatani
Majumdar et al.
US 2003/0225964 Al
US 2006/0036847 Al
US 2009/0037977 Al
US 2009/0132701 Al
US 2009/0296726 Al
US 7,719,969 B1
US 2010/0208740 Al
US 2012/0155469 Al
Dec. 4, 2003
Feb. 16, 2006
Feb. 5, 2009
May 21, 2009
Dec. 3, 2009
May 18, 2010
Aug. 19, 2010
June 21, 2012
REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1^4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gai, Flanders, and Furatani. Final Act. 6—9.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gai, Flanders, Furatani, and Krishnan. Final Act. 10.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gai, Flanders, Furatani, and Dropps. Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gai, Bush, and Furatani. Final Act. 11—
18.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gai, Bush, Furatani, and Gable. Final Act. 18—19.
Claims 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gai, Snively ’701, and Furatani. Final Act. 19—23.
1 Appellants argue the rejection of claim independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—11 and
13—21. Merely restating with respect to a second claim an argument
previously presented with respect to a first claim is not an argument for
separate patentability of the two claims. Therefore, we decide the appeal of
claims 1—11 and 13—21 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2016-002297
Application 12/976,200
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gai, Snively ’701, Furutani, and Snively ’726. Final Act.
24.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gai, Snively ’701, Furutani, and Dropps. Final Act. 24—
26.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gai, Snively ’701, Furutani, Dropps, and Majumdar.
Final Act. 26—27.
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
The failure of Gai and Flanders to disclose (i) a device having virtual
ports associated with a MAC address having a common portion and/or (ii) a
unique identifier of an Ethernet bridge included in a MAC address are
deficiencies in the teachings of the prior art that each render improper the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). App. Br. 11—12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—27)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—8) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because they fail to address
the Examiner’s findings and, instead, attack the references individually for
4
Appeal 2016-002297
Application 12/976,200
failing to disclose limitations for which the Examiner relies on different
references, either individually or in combination with the argued reference.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are
insufficient because “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” Ans. 2 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). For example, Appellants
argue
if Gai . . . does not explicitly disclose “a MAC address [for a
virtual port instantiated at a first network device] includes an
identifier uniquely associated with ... a second device (Ethernet
bridge),” and Flanders discloses nothing about virtual ports or
associating MAC addresses with virtual ports, then the
combination of Gai in view of Flanders certainly cannot disclose
or suggest these recitations [i.e., virtual ports at one device
associated with a MAC address having a common portion, as
required by claim 1],
App. Br. 12. This argument does not contradict the Examiner findings
or otherwise render those findings erroneous. In particular, the
Examiner finds Flanders, not the argued Gai reference, “discloses a
MAC address portion to include an identifier uniquely associated with
a network device” (Final Act. 7) and Gai, not the argued Flanders
reference, discloses virtual ports (Final Act. 6—7.) Similarly,
Appellants’ argument that “nowhere does Flanders disclose that a
unique identifier of the Ethernet bridge is included in a MAC address”
(App. Br. 12) fails to address the Examiner’s findings that Furutani
“discloses a common MAC address portion included in each MAC
address of a plurality of MAC addresses and having the same value
for each MAC address from the plurality of MAC addresses” (Final
5
Appeal 2016-002297
Application 12/976,200
Act. 8). Thus, although the Examiner relies on Flanders for “an
identifier uniquely associated with a network device” (Final Act. 7),
the Examiner finds the limitation of including an identifier in a MAC
address is disclosed by Furutani such that the combination, not
Flanders alone as argued, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation
of claim 1. Similarly, Appellants’ argument that “nowhere does Gai
disclose or suggest that a plurality of virtual ports . . . have MAC
address[es] having a common MAC address portion” (App. Br. 13)
ignores the Examiner’s finding Furutani “discloses a common MAC
address portion included in each MAC address” (Final Act. 8.)
We are also not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument
Furutani only discloses a 24-bit manufacturer code included in each
terminal’s MAC address as opposed to the claimed length of greater
than 24 bits. Reply Br. 3^4. This argument is untimely and waived as
raised for the first time in Appellants’ Reply Brief, despite the Examiner
relying on Furutani for this limitation in the Final Rejection.2 Final Act.
8.
2 “Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal
brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer,
including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by
the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); see also Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d
1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and
evidence not presented timely in the principal brief, will not be considered
when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why
the argument could not have been presented in the principal brief); see also
Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Nor
is the reply brief an opportunity to make arguments that could have been
made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but
were not.”).
6
Appeal 2016-002297
Application 12/976,200
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, the rejections of independent claims 7 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) together with the rejections of dependent claims 2—6, 8—11,
13, 14, and 16—21 which are not argued separately with specificity.
DECISION
We affirm Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—11 and 13—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).
AFFIRMED
7