Ex Parte Wakumoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2014

12032280 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHAUN WAKUMOTO, BRUCE E. LAVIGNE,
ROBERT L. FAULK, JR., MARK A. TASSINARI, and MARK GOOCH
____________________

Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CAROYLN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 The Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company.
2 Appeal Brief filed January 28, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed June
9, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed May 13, 2011 (“Ans.”);
and the original Specification filed February 15, 2008 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of transmitting an upstream
communication packet from a distributed trunk (DT) switch, shown in FIG.
2 as reproduced below.

FIG. 2 shows device 100 connects via distributed trunking (DT) to DT
switch 200 and 202 using distributed trunk 204 comprising links 206, 208
and ports 216, 218.
As shown in FIG. 2, device 100 connects via distributed trunking to a
first distributed trunk switch 200 and a second distributed trunk switch 202
using a distributed trunk 204 comprising links 206, 208. According to
Appellants, distributed trunk (DT) 204 can be “referred to as a distributed
trunk based on the distribution of links 206, 208 comprising the distributed
trunk being distributed between two DT switches 200, 202.” Spec. ¶[0008].

Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280

3

Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 17-19 are independent claims on appeal. Claims
1 and 8 are illustrative of the invention, as reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:

1. A method of transmitting an upstream communication
packet from a distributed trunk (DT) switch, comprising:
receiving a packet from a device connected to a DT port of the
DT switch; and
transmitting the received packet via a non-DT port of the DT
switch if the DT switch is the owner of the device and transmitting the
received packet via a DT interconnect (DTI) port of the DT switch if
the DT switch is not the owner of the device.

8. A method of transmitting a downstream communication
packet received by a non-DT port of one of a DT switch pair
connected via a DT to a destination device, comprising:
receiving a packet at a non-DT port of one of the DT switch
pair, wherein the received packet is destined for the destination device
connected via the DT to the DT switch pair; and
transmitting the received packet via a DT port of the DT switch
of the DT switch pair which is the owner of the destination device.

Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Langberg et al. US 5,852,630 Dec. 22, 1998
Wong et al. US 2004/0037278 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
Shimada US 2008/0069114 A1 Mar. 20, 2008
Valdevit et al. US 7,383,353 B2 Jun. 3, 2008

Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280

4

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-3 and 5-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Wong. Ans. 4-6.
(2) Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wong and Valdevit. Ans. 6-7.
(3) Claims 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong and Shimada. Ans. 7-10.
(4) Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wong and Langberg. Ans. 10-12.
(5) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong, Shimada, and Langberg. Ans. 12-14.

Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wong. In particular, the appeal turns on:
(a) Whether Wong discloses “receiving a packet from a
device connected to a DT port of the DT switch” as recited in
Appellants’ independent claim 1. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 5-6.
(b) Whether Wong discloses “receiving a packet at a non-DT
port of one of the DT switch pair, wherein the received packet is
destined for the destination device connected via the DT to the DT
switch pair” as recited in Appellants’ independent claim 8. App. Br.
12-17; Reply Br. 7-11.

Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280

5

ANALYSIS
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 1-3 and 5-10 based on Wong
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Wong
discloses a method of transmitting an upstream communication packet from
a distributed trunk switch, shown in FIG. 1, having all the limitations
including receiving a packet from a device connected to a DT port of a DT
switch, and transmitting a received packet via a non-DT port or a DT port of
the DT switch if the DT switch is the owner of the device. Ans. 4-5 (citing
Wong, ¶¶[0057], [0059], [0066], FIGS. 1-2 and 3A).
FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 of Wong are reproduced below for illustration.

FIG. 1 shows client devices, switch 10, trunking ports P0-P7 of switch
10, and non-trunking network ports 14 of switch 10 ¶[0038].

Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280

6

FIG. 2 shows multiple switches 12 for receiving and transmitting data
packets from a device.

Appellants contend that Wong does not disclose “receiving a packet
from a device connected to a DT port of the DT switch” as recited in
independent claim 1. App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellants acknowledge
Wong discloses switches 12 having multiple input ports and output ports to
receive and transmit data packets between devices. Id. Appellants then
characterize the connection of Wong’s networked devices is based on a “one
to one” relationship between a single device and a single switch that is
indicative of “trunking,” but not “distributed trunking” as recited in
Appellants’ claim 1. In other words, Appellants argue that the adjective
“distributed trunking” that modifies Appellants’ claimed “switch” has a
significant meaning in the art and should, in itself, distinguish over Wong.
Id. at 10. According to Appellants, the term “distributed trunking” refers:

Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280

7

[T]o the use of port trunking to connect a single device to two
distributed trunk-capable devices, e.g., switches. In this
manner, a single device, e.g., device 100, connects via
distributed trunking to a first distributed trunk switch 200 and a
second distributed trunk switch 202 using a distributed trunk
204 comprising links 206, 208. Distributed trunk (DT) 204 is
referred to as a distributed trunk based on the distribution of
links 206, 208 comprising the distributed trunk being
distributed between two DT switches 200, 202.

Spec. ¶[0008]; see App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 6.
We disagree with Appellants. At the outset, we note that the claim
term “distributed trunk switch” is neither defined in Appellants’ claims nor
Appellants’ Specification. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, ¶[0008] of
Appellants’ Specification only refers to an example of what Appellants
characterize as a distributed trunking arrangement including, for example, a
device 100 connected via distributed trunking to a first distributed trunk
switch 200 and a second distributed trunk switch 202 using a distributed
trunk 204 with links 206, 208, shown in Appellants’ FIG. 2.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide
Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Although a patent applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer of
patent claim terms, the applicant must do so by placing such definitions in
the specification with sufficient clarity to provide a person of ordinary skill
in the art with clear and precise notice of the meaning that is to be construed.
See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Although an
inventor is free to define the specific terms used to describe the invention,
Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280

8

this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision;
where an inventor chooses to give terms uncommon meanings, the inventor
must set out any uncommon definition in some manner within the patent
disclosure so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change).
In the instant appeal, Appellants have identified no such clear
definitions in Appellants’ Specification. An example provided by
Appellants is not an explicit definition of Appellants’ claimed “distributed
trunk switch.” Accordingly, we decline to read limitations appearing in
Appellants’ Specification but not recited in the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v.
3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Consequently, we also find that the adjective “distributed trunk” that
modifies Appellants’ claimed “switch” does not distinguish the claimed
subject matter from Wong. We do not accord “distributed trunk” any weight
in evaluating patentability. In our view, as long as the switch of Wong
performs the contested functions, i.e., receiving a data packet from a device,
the switch is the functional equivalent to Appellants’ claimed “DT switch.”
As correctly found by the Examiner, a data packet is received from a device,
via one of network input ports 166 of switch 12, as shown in FIG. 3A of
Wong. Ans. 15-16 (citing Wong, ¶[0057].) We therefore find Wong
discloses a distributed trunk switch in the manner defined in Appellants’
independent claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants’ contentions have not
persuaded us of any error in the Examiner’s position. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 based
on Wong.
Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280

9

With respect to independent claim 8, the Examiner further finds Wong
also discloses, “a DT [distributed trunk] switch pair” in place of a single DT
switch as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. Ans. 5 (citing Wong, ¶¶[0057],
[0059], [0066], and FIG. 3A.) Similarly to Appellants’ arguments presented
against claim 1, Appellants also argue that Wong does not disclose
“receiving a packet at a non-DT port of one of the DT switch pair, wherein
the received packet is destined for the destination device connected via the
DT to the DT switch pair,” as recited in independent claim 8. App. Br. 12.
Appellants further reiterate the distinction of the claim term “distributed
trunk.” Id. at 12-14.
However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. First, as
previously discussed in connection with Appellants’ claim 1, we do not
accord the term “distributed trunk” any weight in evaluating patentability.
Second, we find that Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of independent claim 8. For example, independent claim 8 simply
requires receiving a packet at a non-DT port of “one” of the DT switch pair.
In other words, only one port of a single switch is required to receive a data
packet. A second DT switch of the DT switch pair is not used or defined in
Appellants’ claim 8.
As correctly found by the Examiner, Wong discloses a data packet is
received via one of the network input ports 166 of switch 12 which can be
viewed as a non-DT port of one of a DT switch pair. Ans. 5 (citing Wong,
¶[0057] and FIG. 3A.) As shown in FIG. 3A, network ports pair 166 and
112 can also be viewed as the non-DT port of a DT switch pair where the
destination port ID value may indicate one of the trunked ports P0-P7 of the
Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280

10

switch 10 or a regular non-trunking network port 14 as determined by a
destination port ID value coding scheme. Ans. 18 (citing Wong, ¶[0066].)
Consequently, we find Wong discloses multiple switches 12 with
multiple ports 166 and 112, shown in FIG. 2 as reproduced previously,
including the disputed limitation of Appellants’ claim 8.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants’ contentions have not
persuaded us of any error in the Examiner’s position. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 8 based
on Wong.
With respect to dependent claims 2-7, and 9-11, Appellants present no
patentability arguments separately from independent claims 1 and 8. For the
same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2-7, and 9-11.

§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 12-16 based on Wong and Shimada
With respect to independent claim 12, the Examiner finds Wong
discloses the same method of transmitting an upstream communication
packet from a distributed trunk switch including all the limitations, except
for the use of a hash function for data transmission. Ans. 7-8 (citing Wong,
¶¶[0057], [0059], [0066], and FIG. 3A.) The Examiner then relies on
Shimada for disclosing the use of hash function for data transmission to
support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 8 (citing Shimada, ¶¶[0130]-
[0135], and FIG. 15.)
Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s rationale for combining
Wong and Shimada. Instead, Appellants reiterate the same arguments
presented against claim 8, that is, Wong does not disclose “receiving a
Appeal 2011-012954
Application 12/032,280

11

communication packet at a non-DT port of one of the DT switch pair,
wherein the received packet is destined for a device connected via the DT to
the DT switch pair” as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 15. Shimada does not
cure the deficiencies of Wong (e.g., does not teach distributed trunking). Id.
at 16.
Again, we disagree with Appellants. For the same reasons discussed
in connection with Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 8, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 12 based on Wong
and Shimada.
With respect to independent claims 17-19, Appellants again reiterate
the same arguments presented against Appellants’ independent claims 1 and
8. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 17-19.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a).

DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1) (iv).

AFFIRMED

cdc