Ex Parte Srinivasan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 27, 2010

10314680 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 27, 2010)

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.
10/314,680 12/09/2002 Shriram Srinivasan RSTN-045 1351
96916 7590 10/27/2010
Wilson Ham & Holman
1811 Santa Rita Road, Ste. 130
Pleasanton, CA 94566
EXAMINER
CHOU, ALAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHIRIRAM SRINIVASAN
and SHANTANU R. KOTHAVALE
____________

Appeal 2009-005659
Application 10/314,680
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, and
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, 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 2009-005659
Application 10/314,680

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 29. We will reverse.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for
eliminating loops in a bridged network (Figs. 3-6; Spec. 4, 6-10).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A method for eliminating loops in a bridged network comprising:
establishing a physical topology based domain within said bridged
network, wherein said physical topology based domain is a physical subpart
of said bridged network and defines a pattern of interconnection between
nodes within said bridged network; and
restricting protocol data units that are received within said physical
topology based domain from being consumed at a network node outside of
said physical topology based domain, said protocol data units comprising
loop-elimination information.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fine US 6,188,694 B1 Feb. 13, 2001
Kracht US 6,804,712 B1 Oct. 12, 2004
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Fine and Kracht.
The Examiner indicates (Final Rej. 2, 3) that Fine discloses
“eliminating loops in a network within a physical topology,” but “does not
disclose expressly the use of a physical topology based domain that defines
Appeal 2009-005659
Application 10/314,680

3
the actual physical interconnection of the nodes within the network.”
According to the Examiner (Final Rej. 3), “Kracht teaches the mapping of
physical topology within the network and using the physical mapping of the
network to run Spanning Tree loop elimination protocol (see column 13 line
1-27),” and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to
use a physical mapped topology domain to aid the use loop elimination
protocols” and “to ensure the loop elimination protocol is running correctly.”
Appellants argue inter alia (App. Br. 17) that Kracht’s “act of
‘obtaining’ the physical topology of a network is well-known in the field and
does not teach or suggest ‘establishing’ a physical topology based domain”
in the virtual network described by Fine.
Based upon the foregoing, we must determine whether the Examiner
erred by finding that Kracht teaches or suggests establishing a physical
topology based domain in the virtual network described by Fine.
Although Kracht runs a Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) while
identifying link failures in a network, and obtains the entire physical
topology of the network before subtracting blocked links learned through
STP, Kracht is completely silent as to establishing a physical topology based
domain, especially in a virtual network such as the one described by Fine
(col. 3, ll. 55-62; col. 4, ll. 34-38).
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 29 is reversed
because the Examiner erred in finding that Kracht teaches or suggests
establishing a physical topology based domain in the virtual network
described by Fine, and the Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection
Appeal 2009-005659
Application 10/314,680

4
does not support a legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

KIS

Wilson Ham & Holman
1811 Santa Rita Road, Ste. 130
Pleasanton, CA 94566