Ex Parte Yong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2017

14037056 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2017)

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.
14/037,056 09/25/2013 Lucy Yong 4194-66901 1711
89394 7590
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
05/08/2017 EXAMINER
JEONG, MOO RYONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2017 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):
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUCY YONG
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,0561
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and CARL L. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to USPTO records, the co-applicant is Futurewei Technologies,
Inc. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Futurewei
Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed inventions relate to "providing
communication over an overlay virtual network (OVN) with multiple data
plane encapsulations at a tunnel endpoint." Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 12, and 17, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal (emphases added to contested limitations):
1. A method for providing communication over an
overlay virtual network (OVN) with multiple data plane
encapsulations at a tunnel endpoint comprising:
receiving a data packet via a first overlay tunnel, wherein
the data packet comprises an encapsulation header of a first
encapsulation type and an inner destination address;
determining an egress tunnel endpoint and a second
encapsulation type supported by the egress tunnel endpoint
based on the inner destination address;
performing encapsulation translation on the data packet
by replacing the encapsulation header of the first encapsulation
type with an encapsulation header of the second encapsulation
type to form a translated packet; and
forwarding the translated packet toward the egress tunnel
endpoint via a second overlay tunnel,
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
July 12, 2016); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 19, 2016); Non-
Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed Mar. 9, 2016); and the
original Specification ("Spec.," filed Sept. 25, 2013). We note Appellants
did not file a Reply Brief in response to the factual findings and legal
conclusions in the Examiner's Answer.
2
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
wherein the first encapsulation type is a virtual
extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) encapsulation type, a
Network Virtualization over Generic Routing Encapsulation
(NVGRE) encapsulation type, a Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) encapsulation type, or a Generic User Datagram
Protocol (UDP) encapsulation type,
wherein the first encapsulation type and the second
encapsulation type are different encapsulation types, and
wherein the data packet is destined to the egress tunnel
endpoint.
12. A computer program product comprising computer
executable instructions stored on a non-transitory medium that
when executed by a processor causes a tunnel endpoint to
perform the following:
receive a data packet;
determine a first encapsulation type of a first egress tunnel
endpoint;
encapsulate the data packet according to an encapsulation
type supported by the tunnel endpoint by adding an
encapsulation header of the supported encapsulation type to
the data packet,
wherein the first encapsulation type is a virtual
extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) encapsulation type, a
Network Virtualization over Generic Routing Encapsulation
(NVGRE) encapsulation type, a Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) encapsulation type, or a Generic User
Datagram Protocol (UDP) encapsulation type;
select a second egress tunnel endpoint when the first
encapsulation type is not supported by the tunnel endpoint,
wherein the second egress tunnel endpoint supports the first
encapsulation type and the encapsulation type supported by the
tunnel endpoint;
add a first tunnel header to the encapsulated data packet
to form a first overlay data packet; and
3
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
forward the first overlay data packet to the second egress
tunnel endpoint.
17. A method for providing communication over an
overlay virtual network (OVN) with multiple data plane
encapsulations automatically using a Border Gateway Protocol
(BGP) signaling, wherein the method comprises:
advertising a supported capability in a BGP Open
message;
advertising a supported route and a supported tunnel
encapsulation attribute in a BGP Update message;
obtaining capabilities of peers and updating a forwarding
table with the capabilities of the peers obtained;
obtaining routes and corresponding tunnel encapsulation
attributes of the peers after updating the forwarding table; and
selecting a desired overlay tunnel for routing a packet
after the forwarding table has been updated.
4
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Brandwine et al. US 8,751,691 B1
("Brandwine")
Kim et al. US 2013/0142201 Al
("Kim")
Ramesh US 2013/0329728 Al
Guichard et al. US 2013/0336315 Al
("Guichard")
June 10, 2014
June 6, 2013
Dec. 12,2013
Dec. 19, 2013
Chandra et al., "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4,"
RFC 2842, May 2000 (hereinafter, "Chandra").
Mohapatra et al., "The BGP Encapsulation Subsequent
Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute," RFC 5512, April 2009
(hereinafter "Mohapatra").
Sridharan et al, "NVGRE: Network Virtualization using
Generic Routing Encapsulation," draft-sridharan-
virtualization-nvgre-01.txt, July 9, 2012 (hereinafter
"Sridharan").
Mahalingam et al. ("VXLAN: A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks," draft-mahalingam-duttdcops-vxlan-02.txt,
Aug. 22, 2012 (hereinafter "Mahalingam").
Yong et al., "Use Cases for DC Network Virtualization
Overlays," draft-mity-nvo3-use-case-02, Aug. 23, 2012
(hereinafter "Yong").
5
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
Rejections on Appeal
Rl. Claims 1,11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
§112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Ans. 2; Non-Final Act. 4.
R2 Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ramesh, Brandwine,
and Kim. Ans. 3; Non-Final Act. 5.
R3. Claims 2, 3, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ramesh, Brandwine, Kim, and
Mohapatra. Ans. 7; Non-Final Act. 9.
R4. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ramesh, Brandwine, Mohapatra, and
Chandra.
R5. Claims 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Ramesh and Kim. Ans. 10; Non-Final Act. 13.
R6. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ramesh, Kim, and Mohapatra. Ans.
13; Non-Final Act. 16.
R7. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ramesh, Kim, Mohapatra, and
Chandra. Ans. 13; Non-Final Act. 17.
R8. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Mohapatra, Chandra, and
Guichard. Ans. 16; Non-Final Act. 18.
6
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
R9. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Mohapatra, Chandra, and Yong.
Ans. 18; Non-Final Act. 21.
R10. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Mohapatra, Chandra, Yong,
Mahalingam, and Sridharan. Ans. 19; Non-Final Act. 21.
CLAIM GROUPING
We decide the appeal of written description Rejection R1 of claims 1,
11, and 12, infra.
Based on Appellant's arguments (Br. 8—15), we decide the appeal of
obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 1, 4, 5, and 7—10 on the basis of
representative claim 1; we decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection R5 of
claims 12, 14, and 15 on the basis of representative claim 12; and we decide
the appeal of obviousness Rejection R8 of claims 17 and 18 on the basis of
representative claim 17.
Remaining claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 16, 19, and 20 in Rejections R3, R4,
R6, R7, R9, and R10, not argued separately or substantively, stand or fall
with the respective independent claim from which they depend.3
3 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
7
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. We do not consider arguments that
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant's arguments with respect to claims 1—20,
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, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1,
12, and 17 for emphases as follows.
1. $ 112(a) Rejection R1 of Claims Ell, and 12
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Br. 6—8) the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,11,
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking written description support is in
error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the rejected claims lack written
description support because, as argued by Appellant (Br. 7), "one skilled in
the art would unquestionably recognize the Generic UDP encapsulation type
as one of the 'other encapsulation protocols' that may be used" and "UDP
was well-known prior to the filing of Applicant's application?"
8
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
Analysis
Appellant contends paragraph 37 of the originally-filed application
discloses "[t]he servers that are equipped with hypervisor based virtual
switches may support different encapsulation protocols, such as VXLAN
encapsulation, Microsoft's NVGRE, IP GRE, MPLS or other encapsulation
protocols." Br. 6-7 (quoting Spec. 137).
Further, "one skilled in the art would unquestionably recognize the
Generic UDP encapsulation type as one of the 'other encapsulation protocols'
that may be used." Br. 7.4 As purported "evidence" that "Generic UDP
encapsulation" existed at the time of filing, Appellant cites a Wikipedia
article.5 Id. While the purported Wikipedia evidence arguably supports the
existence of the "User Datagram Protocol (UDP)" at the time of the
invention, the Examiner finds, in rebuttal:
The Wikipedia article, which was cited by Appellant as
evidence that Generic UDP encapsulation existed at the time of
filing the present application, is about "User Datagram
4 Our reviewing court guides that "it is 'not a question of whether one
skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee's device from the
teachings of the disclosure .... Rather, it is a question whether the
application necessarily discloses that particular device'.... A description
which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought
is not sufficient." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA
1963)) (emphasis added). See also AriadPharm., 598 F.3d at 1352 ("[W]e
have repeatedly stated that actual 'possession' or reduction to practice outside
of the specification is not enough. Rather,... it is the specification itself that
must demonstrate possession.").
5 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol ("The User
Datagram Protocol (UDP) is one of the core members of the Internet
protocol suite. The protocol was designed by David P. Reed in 1980 and
formally defined in RFC 768.").
9
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
Protocol (UDP)" and is not about "Generic User Datagram
Protocol (UDP) encapsulation". Thus, the article only proves
UDP was well-known prior to the time of invention but fails to
prove Generic UDP encapsulation is well-known prior to the
time of invention. Hence, the Appellant's evidence is not
relevant.
Ans. 24.
Appellant further argues the Christophersen reference6 provides
"evidence that one skilled in the art might choose UDP instead of any of the
other available encapsulation types." Br. 7.
In response, the Examiner finds, which we agree:
Christophersen, which was cited by Appellant as
evidence that one skilled in the art might choose Generic UDP
encapsulation as the encapsulation type, is also about "User
Datagram Protocol (UDP)" and is not about "Generic User
Datagram Protocol (UDP) encapsulation". Thus, Chrisophersen
[sic] cannot be . . . evidence that one skilled in the art might
choose Generic UDP encapsulation as the encapsulation type.
Furthermore, according to Christophersen, UDP is considered
as a data type and not as an encapsulation type. UDP which
is a data type is not the same as Generic UDP encapsulation,
which is a type of encapsulation. Therefore, the Appellant's
fails to provide any evidence that one skilled in the art might
choose Generic UDP encapsulation as the encapsulation type.
Ans. 24.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the originally-
filed disclosure does not provide support for the contested "Generic User
Datagram Protocol (UDP) encapsulation type" as recited in claim 1
(emphasis added), and as also recited in claims 11 and 12.
6 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0170584.
10
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's written description Rejection R1
of claims 1, 11, and 12.
2. $ 103 Rejection R2 of Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7—10
Issue 2
Appellant argues (Br. 8—12) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ramesh,
Brandwine, and Kim is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a "method for providing communication over an overlay virtual
network (OVN) with multiple data plane encapsulations at a tunnel
endpoint," that includes, inter alia, the step of "receiving a data packet via a
first overlay tunnel, wherein the data packet comprises an encapsulation
header of a first encapsulation type," wherein "the first encapsulation type is
a virtual extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) encapsulation type, a
Network Virtualization over Generic Routing Encapsulation (NVGRE)
encapsulation type, a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) encapsulation
type, or a Generic User Datagram Protocol (UDP) encapsulation type," as
recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellant contends "[t]he combination of Ramesh, Brandwine, and
Kim fails to render obvious claims 1—11 because the Examiner's proposed
modification of the combination of Ramesh, Brandwine, and Kim renders
Ramesh unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and changes the principle of
operation of Ramesh." Br. 9. "[Cjlaim 1 requires the data packet received at
11
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
the tunnel endpoint has a VXLAN encapsulation type, a NVGRE
encapsulation type, a MPLS encapsulation type, or a Generic User
Datagram Protocol (UDP) encapsulation type." Br. 10. Appellant further
argues, "the Examiner equates the tunnel endpoint of claim 1 to the second
switch BEB-2 334 of Ramesh. However, Ramesh's second switch BEB-2
334 receives a customer data frame having a MAC-in-MAC encapsulation
type." Id. Appellant further argues:
[T]he first switch BEB-1 330 of Ramesh removes the
virtualization encapsulation header, replaces it with a MAC-in-
MAC header, and then forwards the customer data frame with
the MAC-in-MAC header to the second switch BEB-2 334.
Therefore, the customer data frame received at the second
switch BEB-2 334 has a MAC-in-MAC encapsulation type, and
not a virtualization encapsulation header, because the
virtualization encapsulation header was intentionally removed
by the first switch BEB-1 330. Despite this, the Examiner
asserts that Kim remedies this deficiency ....
[T]he Examiner asserts that Kim discloses a MAC-in-
MAC encapsulation type being translated to an NVGRE
encapsulation type. The Applicant respectfully submits that this
translation of encapsulation types in Kim, from the MAC-in-
MAC encapsulation type to the NVGRE encapsulation type, is
the exact opposite of what is disclosed in Ramesh, where the
NVGRE header is intentionally removed and replaced with a
MAC-in-MAC header. As such, if Ramesh is modified so that a
virtualization header is added as disclosed in Kim, then Ramesh
will no longer be able to intentionally remove the virtualization
encapsulation header as required by Ramesh. In other words,
Ramesh would be both removing and adding the virtualization
header prior to transporting the packet if the references are
combined as suggested by the Examiner.
Br. 11.
12
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
In response, the Examiner notes the contested limitations were added
during prosecution in an attempt to overcome the Examiner's citation to
Ramesh, which teaches MAC-in-MAC encapsulation. Ans. 26. The
Examiner further finds Ramesh satisfies all that is required of the
encapsulation header, i.e., Ramesh's encapsulation header of the first
encapsulation type (MAC-in-MAC) is replaced with an encapsulation header
of a second type (see Ramesh 145) to form a translated packet, "except that
it is not one of the specific encapsulation types in the encapsulation type list
(i.e., a VXLAN encapsulation type, a NVGRE encapsulation type, a MPLS
encapsulation type, or a Generic UDP encapsulation type as recited in claim
1) introduced in the response of 7/15/2015." Ans. 27. The Examiner further
finds:
However, one of ordinary skill in the art could have
substituted one of the specific encapsulation types in the
encapsulation type list (i.e. a MPLS encapsulation type) for
Ramesh's MAC-in-MAC, because Kim discloses MAC-in-
MAC encapsulation type or MPLS encapsulation type is used
for the purpose of the first encapsulation (Kim, Fig.2,
MACinMAC and MPLS in cross-premise & inter-DC transport
protocols) and being translated to the second encapsulation type
(Kim, Figs. 4&6, [0047], 11. 7-14, [0051], 11. 6-13, MPLS is
translated to NVGRE) and the result is predictable in that
MPLS (instead of MAC-in-MAC) encapsulation type is
translated to NVGRE.
None of the Appellant's arguments . . . presents any
specific reason the Examiner's proposed simple substitution is
improper. Rather, the Appellant's arguments are based on its
own observation about "Ramesh's intention", which is not
supported by and in contradiction to Ramesh's disclosure.
Id.
13
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
Appellant further argues Ramesh's teaching of MAC-in-MAC
encapsulation header is not a virtualization encapsulation header. Br. 11.
However, as pointed out by the Examiner, the claim does not require the
encapsulation header to be a virtualization encapsulation header.
Ans. 27—28.7
Moreover, even if disclosure of a virtualization encapsulation header
were determined to be somehow relevant to the claimed recitation, the
Examiner finds Ramesh teaches "MAC-in-MAC encapsulation is a
virtualization encapsulation ([0016], 'virtualization encapsulation format can
be MAC-in-MAC encapsulation', [0025], A core network . . . can utilize . . .
virtualization encapsulation header, such as MAC-in-MAC)." Ans. 28. The
Examiner further reiterates that Ramesh teaches a MAC-in-MAC
encapsulation type being translated to an NVGRE encapsulation type. Id.
(citing Ramesh || 44, 45).
The Examiner makes further findings concerning the teachings of
Ramesh, with which we agree and incorporate herein by reference.
Ans. 28—29.
Based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
7 See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) ("[Appellant's
arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.").
14
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 4, 5, and 7—10 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
3. $ 103 Rejection R5 of Claims 12, 14, and 15
Issue 3
Appellant argues (Br. 8—12) the Examiner's rejection of claim 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ramesh
and Kim is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a "computer program product comprising computer executable
instructions stored on a non-transitory medium that when executed by a
processor causes a tunnel endpoint to," inter alia, "determine a first
encapsulation type of a first egress tunnel endpoint," "wherein the first
encapsulation type is a virtual extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN)
encapsulation type, a Network Virtualization over Generic Routing
Encapsulation (NVGRE) encapsulation type, a Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) encapsulation type, or a Generic User Datagram
Protocol (UDP) encapsulation type," as recited in claim 12?
Analysis
Appellant again argues, similar to Issue 2, claim 1, supra, "[t]he
combination of Ramesh and Kim fails to render obvious claims 12—16
because the Examiner's proposed modification of Ramesh and Kim renders
Ramesh unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and changes the principle of
operation of Ramesh." Br. 12.
In addition, Appellant contends, "the Examiner equates the tunnel
endpoint of claim 12 to the first switch BEB-1 330 of Ramesh. However,
15
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
Ramesh's first switch BEB-1 330 encapsulates the data frame using a MAC-
in-MAC encapsulation type." Br. 13. Appellant makes further arguments
commensurate with those presented above with respect to Issue 2, claim 1,
supra. Br. 13—14.
For the same reasons discussed above with respect to the teachings of
Ramesh in connection Rejection Rl, claim 1, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in combining Ramesh and Kim to render claim 12
unpatentable under § 103.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 12, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 12, and grouped
claims 14 and 15, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
4. $103 Rejection R8 of Claims 17 and 18
Issue 4
Appellant argues (Br. 14—15) the Examiner's rejection of claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of
Mohapatra, Chandra, and Guichard is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a "method for providing communication over an overlay virtual
network (OVN) with multiple data plane encapsulations automatically using
a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) signaling," that includes, inter alia, the
16
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
step of "selecting a desired overlay tunnel for routing a packet after the
forwarding table has been updated," as recited in claim 17?
Analysis
Appellant contends "[t]he combination of Mohapatra and Chandra
fails to render obvious claims 17—20 because the combination of Mohapatra
and Chandra fails to disclose selecting a desired overlay tunnel for routing a
packet after a forwarding table has been updated with the capabilities
obtained from peers." Br. 14. "Mohapatra’s best route to a next hope node
is selected prior to the forwarding table being updated." Id. Appellant
further argues, according to Mohapatra, "the best route is selected before the
SAFI message is received and the forwarding table updated. Therefore,
Mohapatra does not disclose selecting a desired overlay tunnel for routing a
packet after a forwarding table has been updated with the capabilities
obtained from peers." Br. 15. Appellant further contends Chandra and
Guichard fail to make up for the alleged shortcomings of Mohapatra. Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree,
Appellant does not dispute that Mahapatra [sic] discloses
selecting operation. Appellant only disputes that the timing of
selecting operation with respect to the update of forwarding
table is different between the Mahapatra [sic] and the claim 17.
Although Examiner relies on Guichard to make up the
difference in timing (Office Action, paragraphs 1—3, page 20),
Appellant merely made conclusory statement that Guichard
fails to make up for the shortcomings of Mohaprtra [sic] and
fails to present any reason the Examiner's proposed
combination of Mahapatra [sic] and Guichard is improper.
Ans. 30.
17
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
We agree with the Examiner's factual findings because Appellant does
not respond to the Examiner's specific findings with respect to the reading of
the contested limitation of claim 17 onto the cited prior art combination.
Instead of responding to the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of
Guichard with respect to the timing of the selection, Appellant argues
Mohapatra.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 17, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 17, and grouped
claim 18 which falls therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
5. Rejections R3, R4, R6, R7, R9, and R10 of Claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 16,
19, and 20
In view of the lack of any argument directed to obviousness
Rejections R3, R4, R6, R7, R9, and R10 of Claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 16, 19,
and 20 under § 103, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Arguments not made are waived.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to written description
Rejection R1 of claims 1,11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), and we
sustain the rejection.
18
Appeal 2017-000978
Application 14/037,056
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness
Rejections R2 through R10 of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
19