Ex Parte Wusirika

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2016

12580962 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/580,962 10/16/2009
85197 7590 09/09/2016
Brocade
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Balakrishna Wusirika
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.
112-0375US 1539
EXAMINER
PHUNG,LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2016 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 BALAKRISHNA WUSIRIKA
Appeal2015-005342
Application 12/580,962
Technology Center 2400
Before KAMRAN JIV ANI, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1-29, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. Although the action appealed from is a Non-Final Rejection,
because the application has been twice rejected we have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134. Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420,
1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-005342
Application 12/580,962
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a staged port
initiation of inter-switch links.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
selecting and initializing only one of a plurality of parallel
ports; and
performing initial fabric configuration operations with the
only one of the plurality of parallel ports initialized.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Valdevit et al. US 2004/0024908 Al Feb. 5,2004
Truschin et al. US 2007 /0097952 Al May 3, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Valdevit in view of Truschin. Non-Final Act. 6-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments with respect to claims 1-29, and
we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Non-
2
Appeal2015-005342
Application 12/580,962
Final Act. 6-13), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's arguments (Ans. 3-7). We
incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless
otherwise noted. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues neither Valdevit nor Truschin teaches or suggests
"performing initial fabric configuration operations," as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 7-16; Reply Br. 3-6. According to Appellant, the phrase "fabric
configuration" as recited in claim 1 has a special definition given in the
written description and a well-known ordinary and customary meaning:
The term "fabric configuration" is used in the specification and
has a well-known ordinary and customary meaning to those of
ordinary skill in the art. The specification explains "fabric
configuration can execute steps for selecting principal switch and
exchanging switch parameters; distributing Domain IDs to each
switch in the fabric; establishing zones; and performing path
selection and establishing routes." Application as filed, i-f [0009].
A person of skill in the art at the time would understand (as
evidenced by the Fibre Channel Standard, "Fibre Channel Switch
Fabric-5, (FC-SW-5)", Appendix A; referred to hereinafter as
"the FC Standard") that initial fabric configuration [sic]
operations include actions such as selecting a principal switch
and aquiring [sic] Domain IDs.
App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant's arguments directed to
whether the cited prior art teaches or suggests the performing step as recited
in claim 1 are premised on that claim construction. See, e.g., App. Br. 11-13
("The operations that the Office Action points to in Valdevit as teaching
initial fabric operations cannot happen until after a principal switch has been
selected and Domain IDs assigned."), 16; Reply Br. 5, 6.
3
Appeal2015-005342
Application 12/580,962
The Examiner concludes that the "features upon which appellant
relies ... are not recited in the rejected claim(s)." Ans. 3--4. Instead, the
Examiner concludes "fabric configuration refers to establishing connections
for routing of data through a fabric of switches (id.), as is well known in the
art." Ans. 4. Based on that claim construction, the Examiner finds the prior
art teaches or suggest the disputed claim limitation. Non-Final Act. 6-7;
Ans. 4--7.
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, we will not
read limitations from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regardless of the general contentions and
imputed intended meanings articulated by Appellant in the Appeal Brief,
"[i]t is the claims that measure the invention." See SRI Int 'l v. Matsushita
Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane)
(citations omitted).
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. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the
written description may not be read into a claim when the claim
language is broader than the embodiment.
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
4
Appeal2015-005342
Application 12/580,962
"[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific
embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining
the claims to those embodiments .... [C]laims may embrace 'different
subject matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the
specification."' Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en bane) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term
"must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from
common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the
field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133
F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsdeifer v. Bobrick
Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee
may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition
that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a
patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description.").
Paragraph 9 of the Specification states:
In one embodiment, the fabric can be configured with only one
of the multiple parallel IS Ls between any two switches. Fabric
configuration can execute steps for selecting principal switch
and exchanging switch parameters; distributing Domain IDs to
each switch in the fabric; establishing zones; and performing
path selection and establishing routes. Because the fabric
configuration can be carried out without including the unselected
ISLs and the associated ports, the peak computing resource
requirement on each switch is considerably reduced. And
because the available computing resources are expended in fabric
configuration with only the selected ISLs, the fabric
configuration time can be minimized.
Spec. i-f 9 (emphasis added). As the written description makes clear, it is
describing "one embodiment" and not defining the claimed invention. See
5
Appeal2015-005342
Application 12/580,962
id. Additionally, the written description recites steps that "can"-but do not
have to be-taken. That is insufficient to create a special meaning. It is also
not persuasive evidence of a customary and ordinary meaning.
Similarly unpersuasive is Appellant's reference to the Fibre Channel
Standard. The Fibre Channel Standard is not referenced in the Specification.
Moreover, the table cited by Appellant does not persuade us that it is giving
a definition of a fabric configuration as recited in the claims or an
understanding of how that phrase would be understood by a person of
ordinary skill in the art. For example, we note that the Fibre Channel
Standard indicates that it is "a working draft" and "is not a complete
standard." Fibre Channel Standard, 1. Nor do the sections cited by
Appellant recite anything more than one way of configuring the fabric and
there is nothing that indicates that it is meant to be exclusive. Accordingly,
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in construing the
claim. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's conclusion
regarding the scope of the claims.
Because Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of the claims, they are unpersuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of claim 12, which is argued on the same grounds, and
dependent claims 2-11 and 13-29, which are not argued separately. See
App. Br. 16.
6
Appeal2015-005342
Application 12/580,962
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-2 9.
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