Ex Parte Vobbilisetty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

11958325 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111958,325 12/17/2007
85197 7590 09/26/2016
Brocade
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Suresh V obbilisetty
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.
l 12-0205US/233-628-USP 1917
EXAMINER
RANDHAWA,MANDISH K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
klutsch@counselip.com
acollins@blankrome.com
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SURESH VOBBILISETTY and SUBBARAO ARUMILLI
Appeal2015-004048
Application 11/958,325
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 21, and
22, which are all of the claims pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed July 24, 2014 ("App.
Br."); Reply Brief filed January 31, 2015 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer
mailed December 4, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed April 24,
2014 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed December 17, 2007
("Spec.").
Appeal2015-004048
Application 11/958,325
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a switching device" "for routing
Ethernet frames [between end stations] through a fabric using high
performance routing protocols without requiring changes in receiving and
transmitting Ethernet end stations communicating through the fabric." Spec.
i-f 4, Abstract.
Claims 1 and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants'
invention, as reproduced with disputed limitations emphasized below:
1. A method comprising:
determining a virtual egress switch destination address
for an Ethernet frame based on a physical Ethernet MAC
destination address of the Ethernet frame, wherein the virtual
egress switch destination address is associated with an egress
switch having a plurality of ports;
determining a virtual ingress switch source address based
on an ingress switch having a plurality of ports;
modifying the Ethernet frame to include a header
including the virtual ingress switch source address indicative of
all of the ports of the ingress switch and the virtual egress
switch destination address indicative of all of the ports of the
egress switch; and
modifying the Ethernet frame to include an additional
Ethernet header containing a source MAC address and a
destination MAC address,
wherein the virtual egress switch destination address
identifies a domain identifier of the egress switch, a guaranteed
different domain identifier being assigned to each switch.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App.).
Examiner's Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1, 7, 9, 15, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sodder et al. (US 2004/0081203 Al,
2
Appeal2015-004048
Application 11/958,325
published Apr. 29, 2004) ("Sodder") and Christensen et al. (US 7,457,300
B2, issued Nov. 25, 20008) ("Christensen"). Final Act. 3-5.
(2) Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sodder, Christensen, and Lee et al. (US
2003/0191855 Al, published Oct. 9, 2003) ("Lee"). Final Act. 5---6.
ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 7, 9, 15, 21, and 22
based on Sadder and Christensen
With respect to independent claims 1 and 9, the Examiner finds
Sodder teaches a method, shown in Figures 1 and 4--5, including:
determining a destination address for an Ethernet frame based on
a physical Ethernet MAC destination address of the Ethernet
frame, wherein the destination address is associated with an
egress switch having a plurality of ports (i-10046); determining a
source address based on an ingress switch having a plurality of
ports (i-10046); modifying the Ethernet frame to include a header
including an ingress switch source (MAC) address indicative of
all the ports of the ingress switch (i-10055) and an egress switch
destination (MAC) address indicative of all the ports of the
egress switch (i-10055); and encapsulating the Ethernet frame in a
frame shell having the MAC destination address and the source
MAC address of the encapsulated frame.
Final Act. 3 (citing Sodder i1i1 46, 55, Fig. 2).
The Examiner acknowledges Sodder does not expressly teach, but
relies on Christensen for teaching, that (1) "the source and destination MAC
addresses are virtual addresses" and (2) each switch is assigned with "a
different domain identifier" in order to support the conclusion of
obviousness. Id. at 3 (citing Christensen 2:66-67, 3:53---62, Figs. 5 and 8).
3
Appeal2015-004048
Application 11/958,325
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Sodder. Nor do Appellants challenge the Examiner's rationale for the
combination. Appellants even acknowledge Christensen teaches "64
different domain identifiers" assigned to different switches, i.e., "the
existence of different domain identifiers." App. Br. 6-8 (citing Christensen
4:7-17). Nevertheless, Appellants argue "Christensen does not teach that
each switch gets a different domain identifier." Id. at 6 (citing Christensen
2:66-67). Appellants further argue "Christensen does not have any way to
guarantee" and, as such, "cannot guarantee that each domain identifier is
different." Id. According to Appellants, "different domains are assigned
only if devices [switches] from different manufacturers are present" and
"Christensen cannot guarantee that the devices [switches] are all from
different manufacturers." Reply Br. 3---6.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we find
the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2-5. As such,
we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id.
For additional emphasis, we note that claim terms are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Contrary to
Appellants' arguments, the term "guaranteed" in the context of "different
domain identifier" "assigned to each switch" is not described or defined
anywhere in the original Appellants' Specification. In particular,
Appellants' Specification describes:
"intermediate switches in the fabric 102 can examine the VMAC
address and, using the Domain_ID and Port_ID from the VMAC
4
Appeal2015-004048
Application 11/958,325
address, forward frames based on a Domain and Area-based
routing protocol, similar to FSPF (Fabric Shortest Path First)
used in Fibre Channel. To support such a high performance
routing protocol, each intermediate switch in the fabric 102 is
assigned a Domain_ID and one or more ports of each
intermediate switch in the fabric 102 are assigned a PORT_ID,
such as by using a negotiation technique similar to that employed
in Fibre Channel switches during Fibre Channel fabric
formation. It should be understood ... switches acting as ingress
edge points can also classify the incoming frames and perform
standard IEEE 802. lD VLAN tagging so as to enable separate
FSPF instances for each configured VLAN."
Spec. i121.
In other words, Appellants' Specification only describes that each
switch is assigned with a domain identifier (i.e., Domain_ID) the same way
described by Christensen ("node's ... an identification of a domain"
Christensen 2:66----67, 3:53---62) without any reference or discussion as to
how domain IDs are assigned to the switches or how each switch is
guaranteed a different domain identifier. Spec. i1 21.
Based on Appellants' own Specification, we agree with the Examiner
that (1) "the claims ... merely require that a different domain identifier
being assigned to each switch" and (2) Christensen teaches that each switch
gets a different domain identifier." Ans. 3 (citing Christensen 2:66----67,
3:53---62). As such, any reference to the word "guaranteed" in the context of
"different domain identifier" "assigned to each switch" is not commensurate
in scope of Appellants' claims 1 and 9, or supported by Appellants'
Specification.
5
Appeal2015-004048
Application 11/958,325
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1and9 and their respective dependent claims 7, 9, 15, 21, and 22,
which Appellants do not argue separately.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 6and14 based on
Sadder, Christensen, and Lee
Claim 6 further recites:
"forwarding the modified Ethernet frame through a fabric to a
destination end station using a multi-path routing protocol based
on the addressing of the modified Ethernet frame."
Claim 14 recites similar limitations. The Examiner further relies on
Lee for expressly disclosing this feature to support a finding of obviousness.
Final Act. 5---6 (citing Lee i1i121, 35, Figs. 1, 6, 7).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Lee. In
particular, ii~ppellants ackno\'lJ1edge Lee sho\'l/S a multiple tort1s configuration
where "different routes between two points may exist." App. Br. 9.
However, Appellants argue Lee does not teach any "multi-path routing
protocol" and, certainly, does not teach the disputed limitation: "forwarding
the modified Ethernet frame through a fabric to a destination end station
using a multi-path routing protocol based on the addressing of the modified
Ethernet frame" as recited in claim 6 and similarly recited in claim 14. Id. at
9-10.
We disagree. Contrary to Appellants' argument, Lee's multiple torus
configuration provides an example multi-path routing of data packets. In
particular, Lee teaches forwarding a frame through a fabric to a destination
end station using a multi-path routing protocol based on the addressing of
6
Appeal2015-004048
Application 11/958,325
frame. Ans. 5---6 (citing Lee iii! 34--35, 45, 47, Figs 6-7, Abstract "a system
and a method for routing messages in an interconnection fabric, where there
are multiple routing paths between a source node and a destination node").
In addition to Lee, we further note that Sodder's fabric (network) and
Christensen's fabric (network) are also predicated upon a multi-path routing
protocol. See Sodder's Figures 6, 9-10 and Christensen's Figure 6.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 6 and 14 based on Sodder, Christensen, and Lee.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 6, 7,
9, 14, 15, 21, and 22.
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