Ex Parte Yu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13030688 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/030,688 02/18/2011
73257 7590 09/30/2016
PVF -- Brocade Communications Systems Inc.
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 Fifth Street
Davis, CA 95618
Shunjia Yu
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.
BRCD-3041.1.US.NP 3261
EXAMINER
MANSOURY, NOURALI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
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, NAGARAJAN VENKATESAN,
ANOOP GHANW ANI, PHANIDHAR KOGANTI,
MYTHILIKANTH RAMAN, RAJIV KRISHNAMURTHY,
and DILIP CHATW ANI
Appeal2015-006050
Application 13/030,688
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-24. (App. Br. 6) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Feb. 18, 2011 ("Spec."), the
Non-Final Office Action filed July 17, 2014 ("Non-Final Act."), the Appeal
Brief filed Dec. 12, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar.
25, 2015 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed May 22, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2015-006050
Application 13/030,688
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to supporting multiple multicast trees in trill
networks. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A switch, comprising:
a determining module operable to determine an internal
multicast group identifier based on a source address, a multicast
address, and a multicast tree identifier field associated with a
multicast packet, wherein the internal multicast group identifier
is internal and local to the switch and is distinct from the
multicast tree identifier; and
a forwarding module operable to associate one or more
output ports with the multicast packet based on the internal
multicast group identifier.
(App. Br. 12 - Claims App'x.)
REJECTION
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Perlman (PJ3ridges: Base Protocol Specification , Radia Perlman et al., The Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), TRILL Working Group, March 3, 2010) and Banerjee (US
2010/0061269 Al, publ. Mar. 11, 2010.) (Non-Final Act. 2---6.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 9, 17
Appellants argue the combination of Perlman and Banerjee fails to
teach or suggest the claimed limitation of "determining an internal multicast
group identifier based on a source address, multicast address, and a multicast
tree identifier field associated with a multicast packet, wherein the internal
multicast group identifier is internal and local to a switch and is distinct from
2
Appeal2015-006050
Application 13/030,688
the multicast tree identifier." (App. Br. 6-9.) We do not agree with
Appellants.
The claimed invention determines an internal multicast group
identifier based on a source address, a multicast address, and a multicast tree
identifier field associated with a multicast packet. (See Claim 1, supra.) As
Appellants' Specification and the cited references suggest, the source
address, multicast address, and multicast tree identifier are used in the prior
art for routing multicast packets. (See Spec. i-f 5; Banerjee i-fi-155-58;
Perlman 4.6.1.2.) Appellants' asserted invention is to base a new identifier
on this same data and use it to "associate one or more ports with the
multicast packet." Figures 3D and 3E of the Specification demonstrate this
process.
S-i.JlH~CE .1&,_NO
MULHCAST
FIG.SD
Specification, Fig. 3D shows how source and multicast addresses are used
with multicast tree IDs to generate internal multicast group identifiers.
3
Appeal2015-006050
Application 13/030,688
~r·HHm.i>.L
MULTtCl,ST
GROUP ID
2.:ti2
fM'IBRN1>..l
MUlnCAST
(;H(AJP ID.
EGR2$$ PORT
l.OOKUP
TABLE
3M
f(1Rf:SG PORT
LOOKUP
TABLE
FIG. 3E
Specification, Figure 3E shows internal multicast identifiers input to a
lookup table to generate egress port identifiers (e.g., P-336).
Turning to the cited art, the Examiner shows that Perlman teaches a
multicast address and distribution tree identifier. (E.g., Final Act. 2--4; Ans.
3--4, citing Perlman 4.2.1.6.) In addition, the Examiner correctly finds
Banerjee teaches use of a source address, multicast address, and tree
identifier for routing of multicast packets. (E.g., Final Act. 3--4, citing
Banerjee i-fi-155-58.) Banerjee even suggests putting the source address,
multicast address, and tree identifier together as {tree-id, node-id};
{nexthop-interface}. (Banerjee i156.) The forwarding of the multicast
packet to the output port in the combined references is no different than is
claimed. Note that the claims do not recite the details of, for example,
Figures 3D and 3E of the Specification explaining how the internal multicast
group identifiers are created and used to associate a multicast packet with an
output port.
When interpreting claim language, we apply the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
4
Appeal2015-006050
Application 13/030,688
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard, a person of
ordinary skill would have considered that the source address, multicast
address, and tree identifier may be regarded as one "identifier" even though
those pieces of data are not combined together as one (the claim does not
recite that these pieces of data are combined or joined in any way). Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that the claimed features are shown in the
combination of Perlman and Banerjee. We next address Appellants'
remaining specific arguments, as follows.
Appellants argue the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for failing to explain fundamental differences between the cited
references and independent claims. (App. Br. 7.) For the reasons explained,
we do not agree the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The differences between the claimed invention and cited art
are subtle, basically involving basing the claimed internal multicast group
identifier on a source address, multicast address, and tree identifier, which
are used in the prior art for the same purpose. Because the Examiner's
citations to Perlman and Banerjee show these features, we are not persuaded
the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellants argue Perlman is limited to a system that selects a
distribution tree for multicast based on least-cost root selection and does not
"associate one or more output ports with the multicast packet based on the
internal multicast group identifier." (App. Br. 7.) We do not agree that
Perlman is limited to least-cost-root selection, which is described as a
"default," suggesting there are other routing algorithms that could be used.
(See Perlman 4.6.1.2.) As noted, Appellants' internal multicast group
identifier is based on the source address, multicast address, and tree
identifier, which are used in the combination of Perlman and Banerjee to
5
Appeal2015-006050
Application 13/030,688
forward multicast packets. The combined references thus use the equivalent
of the claimed internal multicast group identifier absent details in the claim
explaining how such identifier is created and used in a way that is different
from the cited art. Viewed another way, calling the source address,
multicast address, and tree identifier collectively "an identifier" (the claim
does not even recite that they are concatenated or otherwise combined as a
unitary address) and performing the same operation with this data as done in
the prior art is not inventive, but obvious.
Appellants argue Banerjee' s tree-ID is not the same as an internal
multicast group identifier, which is distinct from the multicast tree identifier.
(App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6-9.) Again, combining known pieces of data to
generate a single piece of data and calling it distinct is insufficient basis to
render the claims nonobvious over the combined references absent details in
the claim regarding how the internal multicast group identifier is created or
used differently than the prior art, given that both the claimed invention and
the combined references use the same basic pieces of data to achieve the
same result of routing a multicast packet.
Appellants argue Banerjee is merely directed to a system that
determines a next-hop interface based on a tree-ID, which is consistent
across the network, and a node-ID. (App. Br. 8.) We do not see how this
observation is commensurate in scope with any limitation of the claim, and
thus it is ineffective either to distinguish the claimed invention over the
combined references or show Examiner error.
Appellant argues the tree-ID in Banerjee is not an internal multicast
group identifier because it is not internal and local to a switch. (App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 7-9.) The source address, multicast address, and tree identifier
necessarily are used to some extent internally and locally in the combination
6
Appeal2015-006050
Application 13/030,688
of Perlman and Banerjee to forward a multicast packet. That this data may
also be used outside of a switch is not precluded by the claims.
Appellants further argue the proposed combination would improperly
change the principle of operation of the prior art. (App. Br. 9-10.)
Specifically, Appellants allege Banerjee does not disclose an internal
multicast group identifier, Banerjee's tree-ID is not internal and local to a
switch, and Perlman is limited to a least cost path routing algorithm. For the
stated reasons, we disagree with these arguments and find them unpersuasive
to show change in the principle of operation of either reference. Thus, we
do not agree with Appellants' argument that the combination of Perlman and
Banerjee is improper.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining claims and
therefore we sustain the rejections of those claims for the reasons previously
stated. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801F.2d1324, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
CONCLUSION
An obviousness rejection under§ 103(a) requires that "there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(internal quotations omitted)). On this record, we find the Examiner's
7
Appeal2015-006050
Application 13/030,688
reasoning and rational underpinning adequate to support the conclusion of
obviousness.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
8