Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 31, 2019

13678522 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/678,522
109858 7590
ADELILLP
11859 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 408
11/15/2012
06/04/2019
Los Angeles, CA 90025
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronghua Zhang
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.
N023.02 (NCRA.P0118) 8678
EXAMINER
COONEY, ADAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2019 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):
ipadmin@vmware.com
mail@adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONGHUA ZHANG, TEEMU KOPONEN,
P ANKAJ THAKKAR, and MARTIN CASADO
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, 10-12, 14--18, and 21-26. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part. 3
1 Appellants identify Nicira, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 5, 9, and 13 have been cancelled, and pending claims 19 and 20 are
not before us on appeal as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 19 and
20 was withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer. (Ans. 21.)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed November 15,
2012, the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed May 18, 2017, the
Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed December 18, 2017, the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.") mailed May 11, 2018, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July
11,2018.
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to methods and controller applications for
"configuring several middlebox instances ... [that] implement a middle box
in a distributed manner in several hosts" for "load balancing and destination
network address translation." (Abstract; Title (capitalization altered).) In
one implementation, Appellants' invention uses a controller to "configure[]
a first middlebox instance to obtain status of a set of servers and disseminate
the obtained status to a second middlebox instance" and "configure[] the
second middlebox instance to use the status to select a server from the set of
servers." (Abstract.)
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 14 are independent. Claims 1 and 10, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a
controller application of a network control system for
configuring a logical middlebox in a distributed manner across
a plurality of physical machines, the logical middle box part of a
logical network that logically connects a plurality of machines,
the controller application comprising sets of instructions for:
configuring a first middlebox instance, operating in a first
physical machine, to (i) implement the logical middlebox by
selecting a destination machine from a set of machines for
packets sent from a first source also operating on the first
physical machine and that have a destination address of the set
of machines, (ii) obtain status data for the set of machines of the
plurality of machines connected to the logical network, and (iii)
disseminate the obtained status data to at least a second
middlebox instance operating in a second physical machine;
and
configuring the second middlebox instance to implement
the logical middlebox by using the status data received from the
first middlebox instance to select a destination machine from
the same set of machines for packets sent from a second source
2
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
also operating on the second physical machine and that have the
destination address of the same set of machines.
10. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a
controller application of a network control system for
configuring a logical middlebox in a distributed manner across
a plurality of physical machines, the logical middle box part of a
logical network that logically connects a plurality of machines,
the controller application comprising sets of instructions for:
configuring a plurality of middle box instances, each
operating in a different one of the physical machines, to (i)
receive a packet directed to a set of servers providing a same
service, (ii) select a server from the set of servers to which to
send the packet, (iii) create a set of flow entries, using a
network address of the selected server, that specify to send
subsequent packets having similar characteristics to the
received packet to the selected server, and (iv) provide the
created set of flow entries to a corresponding managed
forwarding element operating in the physical machine with the
middlebox instance; and
configuring managed forwarding elements in the
plurality of physical machines to forward subsequent packets
based on the set of flow entries created by the corresponding
middlebox instance without the corresponding middlebox
instance processing the subsequent packets.
(App. Br. 29--34 (Claims App'x).)
REJECTI0NS 4 & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14--18, and 21-26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kondamuru (US
4 Claims 19 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kondamuru, Chao, and McGuire et al. (US 2008/0049621
Al, published Feb. 28, 2008, "McGuire"). (Final Act. 25-27 .) However,
the§ I03(a) rejection of claims 19 and 20 was withdrawn in the Examiner's
Answer, and is no longer pending on appeal. (Ans. 21.)
3
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
2010/0131638 Al, published May 27, 2010) and Chao et al. (US
2013/0003735 Al, published Jan. 3, 2013, "Chao"). (Final Act. 8-24.)
(2) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kondamuru, Chao, and Ikeda (US 2003/0009559 Al,
published Jan. 9, 2003). (Final Act. 24--25.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 21, 22, 25, and 26
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend "Kondamuru and Chao
do not disclose or suggest a controller application that configures the first
and second middlebox instances" operating in first or second physical
machines to implement a logical middlebox by "selecting a destination
machine from a set of machines for packets sent from a first [ or second]
source also operating on the first [ or second] physical machine and that have
a destination address of the set of machines," as claimed. (App. Br. 7-10;
Reply Br. 2--4.) Particularly, Appellants argue Chao's "middleboxes
themselves do not actually operate on physical machines with the sources of
packets (i.e., these middleboxes are not described as being situated at the
host)" and "none of these middleboxes [ of Chao] are actually the destination
of the packet, nor do they have the destination address of the packet." (App.
Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3.) Appellants also argue the claimed "selection of a
destination machine from a set of machines (by the first middlebox instance
or by the second middle box instance) is not addressed at all" by the
Examiner. (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3.) Appellants additionally assert Chao
does not teach the claimed "selection" ( of a destination machine) because
Chao's "middle boxes are not a set of machines with the destination address
4
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
of the packet"; rather, "forwarding information is inserted into the packet by
the agent in Chao ... [ which agent] selects the middle boxes that the packet
will traverse." (Reply Br. 4 (citing Chao ,r 22).) Appellants further argue
the Examiner's combination of Kondamuru and Chao lacks articulated
reasoning and relies on impermissible hindsight. (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4.)
We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own.
Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Chao's forwarding of packets
from middlebox to middlebox teaches the claimed "selecting a destination
machine" by "a first middlebox instance, operating in a first physical
machine" and "a second middlebox instance operating in a second physical
machine" as claimed. (Ans. 23-24 (citing Chao ,r 23); Final Act. 10-11
(citing Chao ,r,r 22, 36-41, 51, 76).) Particularly, Chao teaches middlebox
instances 145 operating in different physical machines (machines labeled
"MIDDLE BOX A" "MIDDLE BOX B" "MIDDLE BOX C" "MIDDLE
' ' '
BOX D," and "MIDDLE BOX E" in Chao's Figure 1). (See Chao ,r,r 36-41,
Fig. 1; Ans. 23-24.)
Chao's first middlebox instance ( operating in a first physical machine
"MIDDLE BOX A") is configured to select a destination machine (a second
physical machine "MIDDLE BOX B" holding the next middlebox instance
to be traversed) for packets sent from a first source also operating on the first
physical machine ("MIDDLE BOX A"), the packets having a destination
address of the set of machines, as required by claim 1. (See Chao ,r,r 22-23,
36-41, 49 (describing "a data packet having a payload and a packet header
including an Ethernet header identifying a source address and destination
address"), 51, Figs. 1 and 3A-3B (described by Chao's paragraph 51); Ans.
5
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
23-24; Final Act. 10-11.) For example, Chao's paragraph 50 explains that
"the current middlebox" ( a first middle box instance) "obtain[ s ], using the
layer-2 forwarding information, a MAC address of the next middlebox in
sequence to be traversed ... [ and] updat[ es] the destination address in the
modified Ethernet header of the data packet to the MAC address of the
next middlebox," thereby selecting a destination machine (the machine of
the next middle box) for packets sent from a first source (the machine of the
current/first middlebox) as required by claim 1. (See Chao ,r 50.)
Appellants argue Chao's "middleboxes themselves do not actually
operate on physical machines with the sources of packets (i.e., these
middleboxes are not described as being situated at the host)" (see App. Br.
8-9); however, claim 1 does not require the "first source" and the "second
source" of the packets to be the packets' original source (e.g., to be Chao's
source host in Figure 1 ). Thus, the broadly claimed "first source" and
"second source" do not preclude intermediate sources of the packets-such
as Chao's sequence of middlebox instances sending the packets from one
middlebox instance to the next. (Ans. 23-24.) 5
Appellants further argue "none of these middle boxes [in Chao] are
actually the destination of the packet, nor do they have the destination
address of the packet," and Chao's "middleboxes are not a set of machines
with the destination address of the packet." (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4.)
5 Appellants' Specification similarly describes intermediate packet sources
that include switches (Managed Switching Elements (MS Es) 2 and 4, see
Spec. Figure 2) and middlebox instances (instances 135, 140, 145, see Spec.
Figures 2 and 3) traversed by a packet originating at Client VMl in Host 2,
on its way to Server VMl in Host 4. (See Spec. 10: 10-15, 10:26-11 :34,
13:19-32, Figs. 2-3.)
6
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
Appellants' arguments are, again, not supported by corresponding language
in claim 1. Claim 1 does not require middleboxes to have the destination
address of the packet; rather, claim 1 recites "packets ... that have a
destination address of the set of machines" and "packets ... that have the
destination address of the same set of machines." Such is disclosed by
Chao's packets that have a destination address encoded in the packet header.
(See Chao ,r,r 49--51.) Appellants' argument that "none of the[] middle boxes
[in Chao] are actually the destination of the packet" (see App. Br. 9) is
similarly unpersuasive because claim 1 does not preclude the physical
machines holding middlebox instances from being the claimed "destination
machines." That is, claim 1 does not exclude intermediate destinations
(such as middleboxes' physical machines) from the claimed "destination
machines."
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner's combination of Kondamuru and Chao lacks articulated
reasoning and relies on impermissible hindsight. (See App. Br. 1 O; Reply
Br. 4.) The Examiner has found each of the elements of the claimed
invention and provided an articulated reasoning to modify those elements in
the combination. (Final Act. 12; see also Final Act. 9--11; Ans. 24--25.)
Moreover, the Examiner has articulated reasons to combine the prior art
teachings from the references and provided a rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness, i.e., to:
incorporate[] the feature of determining a sequence of
middle boxes, as taught by Chao, into the system of Kondamuru
in order to provide the benefit of scalability by improving support
of load balancing by a global server load balancing (GSLB
[ described by Kondamuru]) appliance in a GSLB hierarchy of
7
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
appliances capable of forwarding and switching operation
management.
(Final Act. 12.)
Appellants generally disagree without specifically addressing the
Examiner's rationale to combine the teachings of the two references. (See
App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4.) Merely alleging that the references fail to support
an obviousness rejection is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013) ("The arguments shall explain why the
examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.")
Additionally, Appellants' argument that "the cited portions of Chao do not
actually relate to any particular type of middlebox" (see App. Br. 10) is
contradicted by Chao's paragraphs 3 6-41, 51, and 7 6, which describe
"middle boxes ... includ[ing] a plurality of instances of
a middlebox implemented in software" for providing a "non-forwarding
network service" including "traffic monitoring, traffic engineering, traffic
policing, deep packet inspection (DPI), load balancing, network and system
security enforcements such as firewall, network address translation,
signature management for intrusion detection systems, and multimedia
buffer management." (See Chao ,r,r 41, 51, 76.) Appellants' Specification
similarly describes "middleboxes [that] perform data processing other than
forwarding the data ( e.g., network address translation, load balance, firewall,
intrusion detection and prevention, wide area network optimization, etc.)."
(See Spec. 6:30-34.)
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1.
8
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
With respect to independent claim 6, Appellants reiterate the same
arguments presented against claim 1. (App. Br. 11-14.) For the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 6.
No separate arguments for patentability are presented for dependent
claims 2--4, 7, 8, 21, 22, 25, and 26. (See App. Br. 24.) Accordingly, for the
reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1 and 6, we sustain the
rejections of these dependent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 24
With respect to dependent claim 24, Appellants contend Chao does
not teach the claimed distributing data records defining a configuration for a
logical middlebox because Chao's ARP (Address Resolution Protocol)
resolutions and forwarding tables received from a centralized controller "are
not middlebox configuration data" and are "not relevant to the middlebox
functions of the middleboxes in Chao." (App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 15.)
Appellants further argue Chao's ARP servers "do not directly manage
middlebox instances" as required by claim 24. (Reply Br. 15.)
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Claim 24 does not specify
what the term "directly" encompasses, and Appellants do not explain why
Chao's centralized controller managing middlebox instances via ARP
servers would not teach "directly manag[ing] the first middlebox instance"
and "directly manag[ing] the second middlebox" as claimed. Additionally,
Appellants' argument that "the ARP resolution and forwarding table
information is [sic] not relevant to the middlebox functions of the
middleboxes in Chao" (see Reply Br. 15) is contradicted by Chao's
9
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
paragraphs 36 and 40. (See Chao ,r,r 36, 40; Ans. 31.) In addition, although
Appellants argue Chao does not teach the claimed "middlebox configuration
data" (see App. Br. 26), Appellants do not explain why data distributed from
Chao's centralized controller to middle boxes would not teach the claimed
pluralities of "data records defining a configuration for the logical
middlebox." (See Chao ,r,r 36-41.)
We agree with the Examiner's findings that Chao distributes data
records defining a configuration for a logical middlebox as claimed because
Chao's "[ m ]iddlebox instances are configured using multiple ARP servers
that receive information about hosts, agents and middleboxes from a
centralized controller," the "information includ[ing] ARP resolution and
forwarding table, along with any updates for the forwarding table that is
used to provision the middlebox instances." (Ans. 31 (citing Chao ,r,r 36-
41).)
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 24. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 24.
Claims 10-12 and 23
Independent claim 10 recites, inter alia:
configuring a plurality of middlebox instances, each
operating in a different one of the physical machines, to ... (iii)
create a set of flow entries, using a network address of the
selected server, that specify to send subsequent packets having
similar characteristics to the received packet to the selected
server, and (iv) provide the created set of flow entries to a
corresponding managed forwarding element operating in the
physical machine with the middlebox instance; and
10
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
configuring managed forwarding elements in the plurality
of physical machines to forward subsequent packets based on the
set of flow entries created by the corresponding middlebox
instance without the corresponding middlebox instance
processing the subsequent packets.
(App. Br. 31 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added).) Claim 10 therefore
configures each of multiple middlebox instances ( each instance in a different
physical machine) to create flow entries that are provided to a managed
forwarding element (e.g., a network switch, see Spec. 6:9--16 and 19-21) in
the physical machine with the middlebox instance, and further configures the
physical machines ' switches to forward subsequent packets based on the
provided flow entries without the physical machines ' middlebox instances
processing those subsequent packets.
The Examiner, among other things, finds Kondamuru's policies teach
flow entries created by middlebox instances (network appliances 200, 205).
(Final Act. 14 (citing Kondamuru ,r,r 47--48, 83, 92, 104, 106, 109--110, Fig.
1 C).) The Examiner acknowledges "Kondamuru does not explicitly disclose
forward[ing] subsequent packets ... without the corresponding middlebox
instance processing the subsequent packets" as claimed, but asserts Chao
discloses this claim limitation. (Final Act. 15.) Particularly, the Examiner
finds Chao's "data packets from different data flows tend to have different
headers, and hence different hash values, [so] they are distributed to
different instance of the middle box" such that "the subsequent packet, i.e.
the packet that arrives, is not processed but is forwarded to the other
middlebox instance based on the data flow and hash value" and "[t]herefore,
the packet is forwarded without being processed in order to implement load
balancing." (Ans. 27 (citing Chao ,r,r 68---69, 71, 73); Final Act. 15.) We do
not agree.
11
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
We agree with Appellants' arguments that Chao, alone or in
combination with Kondamuru, fails to teach or suggest "configuring
managed forwarding elements in the plurality of physical machines to
forward subsequent packets based on the set of flow entries created by the
corresponding middlebox instance without the corresponding middlebox
instance processing the subsequent packets" as recited in claim 10. (App.
Br. 18, 31 (Claim 10) (emphasis added).) Contrary to claim 10, Chao
forwards packets-based on directional flow data specifying middlebox
types for the packets' hash values-to corresponding middlebox instances
for processing those packets. (See Chao ,r 68 ("when the data packet arrives
at a particular second type middlebox ... the data packet may be forwarded
to one of the N middle box instances of fourth type middle box ... based on
the hash value" to perform "load balancing among the instances of the
middle boxes" using "a mapping of hash values to middlebox types").) That
is, the "middle box that receives the packet [in Chao] will perform its
processing as normal, then perform the load balancing to select the instance
for the next middlebox type." (App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 9-10.) Thus,
Chao does not disclose forwarding packets "without the corresponding
middlebox instance processing the subsequent packets" as claimed. (App.
Br. 17-18.)
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
rejection of independent claim 10, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejection of claim 10. Because we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim
10, we also reverse the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 11, 12, and 23,
dependent therefrom. Because the above-discussed issue is dispositive as to
the obviousness rejections of all claims dependent from claim 10, we do not
12
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
reach additional issues raised by Appellants' arguments as to the§ I03(a)
rejection of dependent claim 11. (App. Br. 24--25.)
Claims 14-18
Independent claim 14 is directed to "configuring a load balancer in a
distributed manner across a plurality of host machines" and recites, inter
alia, a "controller comprising sets of instructions for"
receiving configuration data for the load balancer that
specifies rules for selecting a server from a set of servers for
packets, having a destination address corresponding to the set of
servers, that are received at instances of the load balancer;
identifying a plurality of host machines, on at least a subset
of which machines of the plurality of machines connected by the
logical network operate, on which to implement the load
balancer;
identifying a set of additional controllers in the network
control system that manage the identified host machines on
which to implement the load balancer; and
distributing the configuration data for the load balancer to
the identified set of additional controllers in order for the
additional controllers to provide the configuration data to
middlebox instances on the host machines.
(App. Br. 32 (Claims App'x).)
The Examiner finds Kondamuru's policies teach the claimed
distributed "configuration data for the load balancer," and the policy engines
on network appliances 200 and WAN (wide area network) optimization
device 205 teach the claimed "set of additional controllers in the network
control system that manage the identified host machines on which to
implement the load balancer." (Final Act. 1 7-18 ( citing Kondamuru ,r,r 44,
46, 55, 91-92, 101, 109-110, 136, 192, Fig. IC).) The Examiner further
13
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
finds Chao's ARP servers (130, 135, see Chao Fig. 1) teach the claimed set
of "additional controllers," and Chao's "agents [125] operat[e] on multiple
hosts, and ... forward the data packets to the appropriate middlebox"
thereby "identifying a plurality of host machines, on at least a subset of
which machines (hosts) of the plurality of machines (hosts) connected by the
logical network ... , on which to implement the load balancer" as claimed.
(Final Act. 18 (citing Chao ,r,r 36-41, 76); see also Chao Fig. 1.) We do not
agree.
We agree with Appellants' arguments that Kondamuru and Chao,
alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the claimed "identifying a
plurality of host machines," "identifying a set of additional controllers," and
"distributing the configuration data." (App. Br. 20-23; Reply Br. 11-13.)
For example, Chao does not teach "identifying a set of additional controllers
in the network control system that manage the identified host machines on
which to implement the load balancer," rather, Chao teaches one centralized
controller to which "new agents, middle boxes and hosts [that] join the
network ... report." (See Chao ,r 40; App. Br. 23.) As Appellants further
explain, Chao's ARP servers do not correspond to the claimed "additional
controllers" because the "ARP servers do not manage host machines" and
are not controllers. (Reply Br. 13; App. Br. 23; see Chao ,r 40.)
Additionally, Chao does not disclose that its centralized controller,
ARP servers, and agents are identified in order to implement the load
balancer as middlebox instances on host machines, as recited in claim 14.
In Chao, the load balancer and middlebox instances have already been
implemented on host machines (see Chao Fig. 1 ):
14
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
Upon booting up, the first ARP server 130 and the second ARP
server 135 register with a centralized controller (not shown) in
the network 140 and an initial list of agents, hosts and
middleboxes is provided to the.first ARP server 130 and/or the
second ARP server 13 5 by the centralized controller. As new
agents, middle boxes and hosts join the network 140 and report
to the centralized controller, the new entries are pushed to the
first ARP server 130, and/or the second ARP server 135. In
addition, the first ARP server 130, and/or the second ARP server
135 may maintain MAC addresses l?f agents and middle boxes .
. . . The agents (such as agent 115, agent 120, and agent 125) and
middle boxes (such as set l?f middleboxes 145) obtain a list l?f
ARP servers in the network during their initial registration with
the centralized controller.
(See Chao ,r 40 (emphases added).) In other words, Chao discloses a
finalized setup of a load balancer's middlebox instances, but does not
disclose the particular steps used for setting up the load balancer's
middlebox instances across host machines as claim 14 recites. (App. Br. 20-
22; Reply Br. 11.)
Kondamuru does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Chao, as Kondamuru does not teach or suggest the claimed "identifying a
plurality of host machines, on at least a subset of which machines of the
plurality of machines connected by the logical network operate, on which to
implement the load balancer." (See Final Act. 18 (acknowledging
Kondamuru's deficiency).) As Appellants further explain, Kondamuru's
policy engines ( on network appliances and WAN optimization device) do
not teach the claimed controllers because (i) a "WAN optimization
controller performs WAN optimization and acceleration, and is unrelated to
the controller recited in claim 14" and "Kondamuru ... makes no mention of
one such controller [(WAN optimization controller)] identifying others
[(additional controllers)]" (Reply Br. 12; App. Br. 22), and (ii) "Kondamuru
15
Appeal2018-007334
Application 13/678,522
... does not show one [network appliance's] policy engine identifying other
[network appliances'] policy engines and distributing configuration data for
the other appliance to that policy engine[, i]nstead, the policy engines are
user-configured" (App. Br. 22 (citing Kondamuru ,r 92)).
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
rejection of independent claim 14, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejection of claim 14. Because we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim
14, we also reverse the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 15-18, dependent
therefrom.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-8, 21, 22,
and 24--26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-12, 14--18,
and 23 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-IN-PART
16