Ex Parte Yu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

13044301 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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.
13/044,301 03/09/2011 Shunjia Yu BRCD-3042. l.US.NP 1575
73257 7590 01/04/2017
PVF — Brocade Communications Systems Inc.
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 Fifth Street
Davis, CA 95618
EXAMINER
WEIDNER, TIMOTHY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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):
sy_incoming @parklegal.com
j eannie @parklegal. com
wendy@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUNJIA YU, ANOOP GHANWANI,
PHANIDHAR KOGANTI, and DILIP CHATWANI
Appeal 2016-000950
Application 13/044,301
Technology Center 2400
Before: ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—6, 8—15, 17—21, and 23—27, which constitute all pending claims. Final
Act. 1; App. Br. 6—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-000950
Application 13/044,301
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosure relates to systems and techniques for flooding
packets on a per-virtual-network basis. Spec. 13. Claim 1, reproduced
below with its disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A switch, comprising:
one or more ports;
a determining module operable to determine a set of
egress ports from the one or more ports based on an
internal virtual network identifier associated with a
respective packet, wherein the internal virtual network
identifier is internal and local to the switch and wherein
the internal virtual network identifier is distinct from a
virtual local area network (VLAN) identifier, and
a flooding module operable to:
determine whether to filter the packet for flooding
at a respective egress port in the set of egress
ports',
in response to determining not to filter the packet,
associate the packet with the egress port as an
output port.
REFERENCES
Borgione
LaVigne
Sajassi
US 2006/0221960 A1 Oct. 5, 2006
US 2008/0267179 A1 Oct. 30, 2008
US 2010/0158024 A1 June 24, 2010
US 2011/0299532 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
US 2011/0299533 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
Yu ’532
Yu ’533
2
Appeal 2016-000950
Application 13/044,301
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 6, 9-13, 15, 18—21, and 24—27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Borgione and
LaVigne. Final Act. 3—13; Ans. 2.
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Borgione, LaVigne, and Sajassi. Final
Act. 13; Ans. 2.
Claims 8, 17, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Borgione, LaVigne, Yu ’532, and
Yu ’533. Final Act. 14; Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—4, 6, 9—13, 15, 18—21, and24—27
The Examiner finds that Borgione teaches or suggests all of the
limitations of claim 1, except determining whether to filter a packet at a
respective egress port in a set of egress ports. Final Act. 4. The Examiner
combines Borgione with LaVigne to provide a teaching or suggestion for
this filtering limitation. Id. at 4—5.
Appellants argue (i) Borgione does not teach or suggest the limitation
of claim 1 of “wherein the internal virtual network identifier is internal and
local to the switch and wherein the internal virtual network identifier is
distinct from a virtual local area network (VLAN) identifier,” (ii) Borgione
and LaVigne do not teach or suggest the filtering limitation of claim 1, and
(iii) combining Borgione and LaVigne would change the principle of
operation of Borgione and LaVigne. App. Br. 7—11; Reply Br. 6—8. We are
not persuaded by these arguments.
3
Appeal 2016-000950
Application 13/044,301
Internal Virtual Network Identifier
The Examiner finds Borgione’s disclosure regarding CE_VLAN and
PE_VLAN identifiers teaches or suggest the disputed internal virtual
network identifier limitation, with the CE_VLAN identifier being the
internal virtual network identifier. Ans. 3—4, citing Borgione 145.
Appellants argue otherwise on the grounds that (a) the CE_VLAN identifier
travels in and out of the switch and is, thus, not internal and local to the
switch and (b) the CE_VLAN and PE_VLAN identifiers are virtual local
network identifiers and, thus, are not distinct from a virtual local area
network identifier. App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 6—8.
We, however, agree with the Examiner that the CE_VLAN identifier
is internal and local to the switch. As the Examiner finds, the switch uses
the CE_VLAN identifier internally and locally, e.g., the switch uses the
CE_VLAN identifier to route packets when it is unable to find a match for a
destination MAC address and a PE_VLAN designation. Ans. 3—4, citing
Borgione 145. Appellants do not present any persuasive arguments or
evidence rebutting this finding. Reply Br. 6—8. Further, Appellants present
no support for their argument that the internal virtual network identifier
cannot pass beyond the switch. App. Br. 7—10; Reply Br. 6—8. And claim 1
does not recite that the internal virtual network identifier is used exclusively
by the switch (like a port identifier might be). Claim 8, which depends on
claim 1, makes clear that the virtual network identifier can identify a virtual
private network, which suggests that the identifier would travel through the
identified virtual private network and thus beyond the switch. We also note
that from the perspective of Borgione’s provider network, the CE_VLAN is
internal and local to the switch. See Borgione Fig. 8.
4
Appeal 2016-000950
Application 13/044,301
We also agree with the Examiner that the CE_VLAN identifier is
distinct from a virtual local area network (VLAN) identifier. Ans. 3—4,
citing Borgione 145. In particular, the CE_VLAN identifier is distinct from
identifier for the provider’s network (i.e., PE_VLAN), which is a virtual
local area network. Claim 1 does not require, as Appellants suggest, that the
local network identifier be distinct from every virtual local area network
identifier. Reply Br. 6—8.
Filtering
The Examiner sets forth how the combination of Borgione and
LaVigne teaches or suggests the limitation of determining whether to filter
the packet for flooding at a respective egress port in the set of egress ports.
Final Act. 4. For example, Borgione teaches or suggests whether to filter the
packet for flooding. Final Act 4, citing Borgione 145. LaVigne teaches or
suggests making filtering determinations at an egress port in a set of egress
ports. Final Act. 4, Borgione 20—21. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings with respect to this disputed limitation and adopt them as our own.
Appellants do not address the combined teachings cited by the
Examiner, but instead argue that LaVigne by itself does not teach or suggest
this disputed filtering limitation. App. Br. 9—10. This argument, however, is
unpersuasive because it does not respond to the Examiner’s rejection, which
is not premised on LaVigne alone teaching this disputed limitation. In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Principle of Operation
Appellants argue that combining Borgione and LaVigne is improper
and would change their principles of operation because the references do not
teach or suggest the disputed limitations addressed above. App. Br. 10-11.
5
Appeal 2016-000950
Application 13/044,301
We are not persuaded by this argument, because, as discussed above, we
disagree with Appellants’ arguments that these references fail to teach or
suggest the involved limitations.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-4, 6,
9—13, 15, 18—21, and 24—27, not separately argued in the Appeal Brief.
App. Br. 7-11.
Claims 5, 8, 14, 17, and 23
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants do not separately address claims 5, 8,
14, 17, and 23, and instead, for these claims, rely on their arguments for
claims 1,10, and 19. App. Br. 7—11. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections
of claims 5, 8, 14, 17, and 23.
Further, we adopt the findings and rationales provided by the
Examiner in the Final Action and the Answer for all rejections identified
above, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions.
New Arguments on Reply
On pages eight through fifteen of the Reply Brief, Appellants
separately argue claims that were not separately argued in the Appeal Brief,
which deprives us of the Examiner’s response. Appellants present no good
cause for having waited until the Reply Brief to raise these arguments, and
no good cause is apparent. Reply Br. 8—15. Accordingly, we will not
consider these arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8—15, 17—21, and
23-27.
6
Appeal 2016-000950
Application 13/044,301
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