Ex Parte Unbehagen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201612151684 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/151,684 05/08/2008 31292 7590 02/29/2016 CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, PA 200 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD SUITE 2040 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Paul Unbehagen 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. 22493-184U (18823ROUS01U) CONFIRMATION NO. 2296 EXAMINER KASSIM, KHALED M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2016 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): ptomail@cwiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL UNBEHAGEN, DAVID ALLAN, and NIGEL BRAGG Appeal2014-002966 Application 12/151,684 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejections of claims 1-20, which are the claims pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present patent application relates to IP forwarding across a link state protocol controlled Ethernet network. Spec. i-f 2. 1 Appellants identify Rockstar Consortium US LP as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-002966 Application 12/151,684 Claims 1 and 15 are illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized): 1. A hybrid switching layer (L2) I network layer (L3) network, comprising: a routing domain comprising a plurality of network layer forwarders and a switching domain, the switching domain interconnecting network layer forwarders and end systems using Virtual Forwarding Entities (VFEs), the switching domain implementing a plurality of virtual LAN segments, the plurality of virtual LAN segments including at least one of an addressed virtual LAN segment and an unaddressed virtual LAN segment, the at least one addressed virtual LAN segment being configured to interconnect a one VFE of the VFEs to at least one of a network layer forwarder and end system, and the at least one unaddressed virtual LAN segment being configured to interconnect VFEs within the switched domain. 15. A method of installing forwarding state in a node operating on a link state protocol controlled Ethernet network, the method comprising the steps of: receiving, by a first node operating in the link state protocol controlled Ethernet network, a Link State Advertisement (LSA) containing a network layer prefix reachable by a second node in the link state protocol controlled Ethernet network, where the path between the first and second node includes a plurality of links in the link state protocol controlled Ethernet network; updating a routing table to indicate an association between the network layer prefix and a Ethernet MAC node ID of the second node in the link state protocol controlled Ethernet network. 2 Appeal2014-002966 Application 12/151,684 The Rejections Claims 1-9 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Erb (US 2003/0026271 Al; published Feb. 6, 2003) and Farinacci (US 2009/0037607 Al; published Feb. 5, 2009.) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Erb, Farinacci, and Filsfils (US 2006/0126496 Al; published June 15, 2006.) Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Farinacci and Filsfils. ANALYSIS Claims 1-14 Appellants contend, inter alia, the Examiner errs in finding Erb teaches or suggests the unaddressed virtual LAN segment recited in claim 1 because "Erb is directed toward routing/forwarding over Label Switch Paths using end system addressing that requires popping MPLS labels at each hop." App. Br. 5 (citing Erb, Abstract). The Examiner finds "Erb describes the routing without routing information." Ans. 2 (citing Erb, i-f 21). The Examiner further finds, "Not having routing information would also mean not having addresses (being unaddressed segments for routing, thus unaddressed virtual LAN segments)." Ans. 2. We are persuaded of Examiner error. The applied teachings of Erb describe encapsulating data packets that lack routing information using labels such that the packets may be routed over the Internet via label switching. Erb, i-f 21. Although this disclosure teaches and suggests unaddressed packets, the Examiner fails in the record before us to explain how such disclosure would teach or suggest the claimed unaddressed virtual 3 Appeal2014-002966 Application 12/151,684 LAN segment. Constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, together with the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-14.2 Claim 15 Independent claim 15 recites, in relevant part, a first node, a second node, and a plurality of links operating "in the link state protocol controlled Ethernet network." The Examiner finds Farinacci teaches or suggests the limitations at issue through disclosure of "interfaces in communication with devices in a first network site through a Layer 2 link, an overlay interface through a Layer 3 link over a core network, and a table mapping destination addresses for the devices in the various network sites (such as those through the Layer 2 link)." Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 10-11. Appellants contend the Examiner errs because: Farinacci runs IS-IS over the overlay/L3 core network that connects various Layer 3 sites, thereby allowing edge routers to forward Layer 2 traffic over the L3 core network by encapsulating the Layer 2 traffic with an IP header. Farinacci does not disclose or suggest running link state protocol at Layer 2, i.e., in the Ethernet network. ... 2 Upon further prosecution, we invite the Examiner to consider whether the limitations of claim 1 implicate 35 U.S.C. § 101 as software per se or alternately as reciting non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea) (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014)), 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph as reciting purely functional limitations, and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as not providing sufficient structure for such purely functional limitations (see Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en bane in part)). 4 Appeal2014-002966 Application 12/151,684 App. Br. 12. Appellants elaborate, "Mere use of Farinacci's mapping table does not, by itself, teach or suggest the method by which Farinacci's mapping table was populated let alone doing so by running a link state protocol in the control plane of the Ethernet network." Reply Br. 5. We have considered the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' argument in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. Appellants' argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. Rather, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons with regard to claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-20. We further emphasize the following. As the Examiner correctly finds, the cited portions of Farinacci teach connecting devices in a Layer 2 link along with a mapping table. Ans. 3--4 (citing Farinacci, i-f 22). Farinacci further teaches running IS-IS as an Interior Gateway Protocol using Link State Packets and teaches, "[I]t is to be understood that routing protocols other than IS-IS may be used, without departing from the scope of the invention." Farinacci, i-f 28; Final Act. 10- 11. Farinacci also teaches, "[T]he network sites are in communication with other network sites through a core network 10. The core network 10 may be a L2 metro Ethernet core .... " Farinacci, i-f 30; Final Act. 10-11. Appellants fail to explain persuasively in the record before us why these teachings would not teach or suggest the claimed nodes and link operating in a link state protocol controlled Ethernet network, as claimed. To the extent Appellants contend Farinacci fails to teach or suggest populating a routing table running a link state protocol in the control plane of the Ethernet network (Reply Br. 5), we are not so persuaded. As the Examiner finds, Farinacci teaches building a hybrid table "where MAC 5 Appeal2014-002966 Application 12/151,684 address destinations are reachable via IP next hop addresses." Farinacci, i-f 47; Final Act. 10-11. Further, Farinacci teaches, "The table 30 is populated by conventional data-plane learning on internal interfaces 34, 36 and by the IS-IS protocol (or other IGP protocol) at the control plane on the overlay interface 32." Farinacci, i-f 54. Farinacci also teaches, "Data-plane learning takes place on the internal interfaces to provide compatibility and transparency within the L2 sites connecting the OTV overlay network 26." Farinacci, i-f 43. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 18-20, not separately argued. Claim 16 Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and further recites, "creating a MAC header ... including a destination MAC address associated with the second node on the link state protocol controlled Ethernet network.'' Appellants content the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 16 because "Encapsulating L2 traffic with an IP header is not directed to creating a MAC header including the destination MAC address associated with a second node in the link state protocol controlled Ethernet network. Layer 3 routing is not the same as packet forwarding over a switching domain such as a link state protocol controlled Ethernet network." Reply Br. 6; App. Br. 14. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Rather we agree with the Examiner that Farinacci teaches or suggests the disputed limitation through disclosure of the hybrid table discussed above in the context of claim 15 and through further teaching "OTV forwarding as a function of 6 Appeal2014-002966 Application 12/151,684 mapping destination MAC addresses in the VPN site to edge device IP addresses in the overlay network." Ans. 4 (citing Farinacci, i-f 30). We are further not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Farinacci's Ethernet header and MPLS header will identify the transmitting node and next hop node but not the MAC header of the destination MAC address associated with the second node, i.e. not the next hop node, where there are multiple nodes between the transmitting node and destination node." Reply Br. 6. This argument is unavailing because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 16 does not require multiple nodes between the transmitting node and destination node. Rather, claim 16 simply requires a first node and second node. As Appellants implicitly admit in their argument, the cited teaching of Farinacci meets the explicitly claimed elements. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of dependent claim 16 and its dependent claim 1 7. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14. We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-20. 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-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation