Ex Parte Taylor et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201613452577 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/452,577 04/20/2012 Joseph Elisha Taylor 82963692 8246 56436 7590 12/23/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER COUSINS, JOSEPH M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2459 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com chris. mania @ hpe. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH ELISHA TAYLOR, WEI WEN CHEN, ZHENJUN CAO, MAX C. KNEES, LAWRENCE M. BESAW, and PETER C. ZWETKOF Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal “relate[s] generally to the management of overlapping address domains (OADs) within a network address translation (NAT) environment.” (Spec. 113). Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 Representative Claim 1. A method for managing overlapping address domains, comprising: receiving, at a global network node management system, network communications from [LI] a physical regional network node manager, a static network address translation (NAT) router, or both managing a plurality of tenants within a NAT environment, wherein each of the plurality of tenants comprises a group of network devices with non-overlapping internet protocol (IP) addresses; and [L2] tracking, via the global network node management system, a state of the NAT environment based on the network communications without directly accessing the network devices. (Contested limitations LI and L2 are emphasized.) Rejections A. Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 9, 11, 12, and 16—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Huonder et al. (US 2005/0271047 Al, December 8, 2005) (hereinafter “Huonder”) in view of Hepburn (US 2009/0259740 Al, October 15, 2009). B. Claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Huonder, Hepburn, and Stapp et al. (US 7,640,340 Bl, December 29, 2009) (hereinafter “Stapp”). C. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Huonder, Hepburn, and 2 Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 Karino et al. (US 2010/017123 Al, July 8, 2010) (hereinafter “Karino”). D. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Huonder, Hepburn, and Crump et al. (US 6,892,245 Bl, May 10, 2005) (hereinafter “Crump”). Grouping of Claims Based upon Appellants’ arguments: we decide the appeal of rejection A of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 9, 11, 12, and 16—19 on the basis of representative claim 1; and, we decide the appeal of rejection B of claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14 on the basis of representative claim 14. We address rejections C and D of claims 15 and 20, respectively, infra. To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence presented. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for the reasons discussed infra. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and legal conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the findings, legal conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer in response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 2—12). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. 3 Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 Rejection A of Independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of Huonder and Hepburn would have taught or suggested contested limitations LI and L2, within the meaning of independent claim 1, under a broad but reasonable interpretation? Contested Limitation L2 We begin our review with contested limitation L2, corresponding to the reverse order argued by Appellants in the Briefs. We find this appeal turns upon claim construction, particularly regarding the contested negative limitation: “tracking ... a state of the NAT environment based on the network communications without directly accessing the networking devices.'1'’ (Claim 1). The Examiner adopts a broader interpretation of the contested negative limitation as being met by “the existence of any intermediary device [that] would yield the communication to be indirect.” (Ans. 3) (Emphasis added). Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not require “overhearing communications or determining NAT characteristics based solely on overheard communications.” (Ans. 4) (Emphasis added). Thus, we conclude the contested tracking step and associated negative limitation (“without directly accessing the networking devices”) does not have to be performed solely “based on the network communications,” within the meaning of claim l.1 1 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Cf. with Spec. 1 69 (“It is to be understood that the technique is not intended to be limited to the particular examples disclosed herein. Indeed, the present techniques include all alternatives, 4 Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 (Emphasis added). Turning to the portions of Appellants’ Specification 63—64, Figs. 1—2, 9) relied on for support (App. Br. 3) for context, we find literal support for the contested negative limitation (| 63), but we find no definition or express description of a “reason to exclude” directly accessing the network devices. (Claim 1: “without directly accessing the network devices.”).* 2 Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 1—3), on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s reading of the contested negative limitation on the cited combination of Huonder and Hepburn is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification.3 The Examiner finds Huonder teaches (Figs. 2, 3): “network components that exist between the central management node 307 and the managed node 309. At the least, component 310 exists between items 309 and 307, thus yield communications to be indirect.” (Ans. 5) (Emphasis modifications, and equivalents falling within the true spirit and scope of the appended claims.”). 2 See Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material."). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See MPEP § 1213.02. 3 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 5 Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 added). The Examiner also finds the secondary Hepburn reference teaches, as depicted in Fig. 4: “the consolidation server 5c has intermediary devices (5a and 5b) between itself and the managed devices in the address space. The presence of the intermediary devices discloses “tracking[. . .] without directly accessing the network devices.'1'’'’ (Ans. 6, quoting claim 1). Regarding the primary Huonder reference, Appellants contend, inter alia\ [T]he central management system (606) of Huonder is directly connected to networks (602, 604) which include the OADs. See Huonder, paras. [0046] and [0047]. As previously stated, the network components are maintained within the OADs. See id., para. [0031]. Thus, to whatever extent that Huonder "tracks the state of the NAT environment" by discovery of a topology, it does so by directly accessing network components, i.e., OADs with stored configuration and seed files, rather than "based on network communications," as is claimed. As a result, the central management system of Huonder directly accesses the network components, which are located in the OADs. (App. Br. 9). Contrary to Appellants’ arguments (id. ), and as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 5), we find at least one described embodiment in Huonder (| 30, Fig. 3) teaches intermediate NAT devices 304 and 310, which are used to access (i.e., indirectly access), the “two private networks 302 and 308 [which] are communicatively coupled to the ISP system 306 [i.e., suggesting “a global network node management system” when considered in combination with Huonder and Hepburn,] by way of NAT devices 304 and 310, respectively.” Huonder (| 30) further teaches “these two private networks 302 and 308 include overlapping private address domains.” 6 Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 Turning to the secondary Hepburn reference, Appellants contend, inter alia: Hepburn states "each virtual server will perform a network discovery of the allocated address space." See id. This discovery may be staged, on demand, or triggered." See id. Thus, by performing a network discovery where the state of the NAT information is "on demand" from an allocated address space, it is clear that the discovery is not "based on network communications." Instead, discovery is accomplished by "directly accessing the network devices, which stands in contrast to what is claimed. (App. Br. 9). For the reasons previously addressed above, we conclude the tracking of a state of the NAT environment does not have to be performed solely “based on the network communications,” within the meaning of claim 1. We find the secondary Hepburn reference teaches at least one embodiment (Fig. 4) wherein: “the consolidation server 5c has intermediary devices (5a and 5b) between itself and the managed devices in the address space. The presence of the intermediary devices discloses ‘trackingF . .1 without directly accessing the network devices.’” (Ans. 6, quoting claim 1). Given this evidence {id.), on this record, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. For the aforementioned reasons, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we find unavailing Appellants’ contentions regarding contested limitation L2 7 Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 Contested Limitation LI Appellants contend that “Huonder and Hepburn fail to disclose a ‘physical resional network node manaser . . . manasins a plurality of tenants within a NAT environment.’” (App. Br. 10). In support, Appellants urge, inter alia: “Hepburn can only be interpreted to manage OADs using virtual servers and not physical regional network node managers. Accordingly, Hepburn does not disclose a ‘physical regional network node manager . . . managing a plurality of tenants within a NAT environment,’ as presently recited.” (App. Br. 11). The Examiner disagrees (Ans. 7), and finds Hepburn (| 55) “discloses virtual servers across one or more physical servers. [The] Examiner takes the position a virtual server executing on a physical server teaches a physical server.” The Examiner further explains the basis for the rejection: Appellants’ arguments fail to articulate the rationale that prevents each virtual server from executing on an individual physical server. [The] Examiner finds Hepburn discloses global network node management system (para 0058- teaches a centralized consolidation server that tracks overlapping domains), where communications are from a physical regional network node manager, a static network address translation or both managing a plurality of tenants (see fig. 4, para 0058-0059 - discloses a hierarchy of servers that manage a plurality of tenants. Additionally, physical memory and CPUs are disclosed for the virtual servers, para 0065- provides examples of physical structures for the virtual servers, see fig. 4, items 5 a, 5b, 5c). (Ans. 7). Because Hepburn depicts virtual servers (Figs. 1—4, 5a, 5b, C2, C3) as each being associated with corresponding physical servers (which are required to provide a host platform for execution of the virtual server), we 8 Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and legal conclusion of obviousness regarding contested limitation LI of representative claim 1. Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, Appellants have not persuaded us of error regarding the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness regarding contested limitations LI and L2, of representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection A of representative claim 1, and rejection A of the grouped claims not separately argued, which fall with claim 1 (see Grouping of Claims, supra). Rejection B of Dependent Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants contest the limitation of “prevent[ing] direct cross-tenant connectivity between any of the plurality of tenants,” as recited in dependent claim 14. Appellants contend, inter alia (App. Br. 11—12): [Njothing in Stapp discloses a NAT environment, much less any other type of environment, that prevents direct cross-tenant connectivity. . . . (VPN) do not communication directly with hosts in a second VPN, both the first VPN and the second VPN are allowed to use the same address." See Stapp, col. 2, 11. 49- 61. However, the lack of communication between the hosts is simply due to the nature of communication between hosts of different VPNs, as described in Stapp, and not because of the DHCP server. The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner concludes that Appellants’ “claim language fails to articulate specific actions taken in claim 14 to achieve the limitations recited.” (Ans. 8). 9 Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 We note claim 14 recites the “NAT environment is configured to: ... prevent direct cross-tenant connectivity between any of the plurality of tenants.” (Emphasis added). We find Appellants have not defined a “NAT environment” in the claim or Specification to preclude the use of VPNs (Virtual Private Networks). Nor have Appellants argued a definition in the Briefs. We find a secure VPN selectively applied to a particular tenant would have prevented direct cross-tenant connectivity between any of a plurality of tenants that might attempt to communicate in an unauthorized manner with the VPN tenant, because VPN communications are designed to be private and secure between communication endpoints. Therefore, on this record, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection B of representative claim 14, and rejection B of the grouped claims not separately argued, which fall with claim 14 (see Grouping of Claims, supra). Rejection C of Dependent Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) We find unavailing Appellants’ argument that “Karino does not disclose a ‘physical regional network node manager . . . managing a plurality of tenants within a NAT environment’” (App. Br. 14), because these limitations are recited in claim 9, not claim 15. We have sustained the Examiner’s rejection A of claim 9 for the reasons addressed supra, regarding representative claim 1. Appellants fail to substantively address the Examiner’s specific findings regarding Karino (113), which we find teaches or suggests (in combination with Huonder and Hepburn), the contested “NAT environment” 10 Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 that “comprises a port address translation (PAT) environment,” as claimed. (Claim 15). Therefore, on this record, we find a preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection C of dependent claim 15. Rejection D of Dependent Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Likewise, we find unavailing Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 20 which are directed to limitations recited in claim 18, from which claim 20 depends. We have sustained the Examiner’s rejection A of claim 18 for the reasons addressed supra, regarding representative claim 1. Appellants fail to substantively address the Examiner’s specific findings regarding Crump (col. 19,1. 6, “static, dynamic”) which we find teaches or at least suggests (in combination with Huonder and Hepburn), the first dynamic NAT environment and the second static NAT environment as recited in claim 20. Therefore, on this record, we find a preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection D of dependent claim 20. Reply Brief To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or 11 Appeal 2015-007791 Application 13/452,577 are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer will not be considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation