15221608 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2020)

Nicira, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 1, 2020

15221608 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2020)

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. 15/221,608 07/28/2016 SUNIL MUKUNDAN N774.CIP1 (NCRA.P0664) 2954 109858 7590 04/01/2020 ADELI LLP 11859 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 408 Los Angeles, CA 90025 EXAMINER ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2020 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 SUNIL MUKUNDAN, STEPHEN CRAIG CONNORS, STEVEN MICHAEL WOO, AJIT RAMACHANDRA MAYYA, and THOMAS HAROLD SPEETER ____________ Appeal 2019-001860 Application 15/221,608 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nicira, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-001860 Application 15/221,608 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1–13, 16, 17, and 19–23, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Representative Claim 1. A network-link method useful for establishing connectivity in an edge-gateway multipath comprising: at an edge device connected to a gateway that is located in a public cloud datacenter: using, for a network-traffic flow of a computer network, deep-packet inspection to determine an identity of an application type associated with the network-traffic flow; assessing bandwidth on a set of network links connecting the edge device to the gateway in the public cloud; based on the application type identity, intelligently load- balancing traffic on a plurality of the network links by sending successive packets belonging to the network-traffic flow on the plurality of the network links[]. Prior Art Gubbi US 2003/0219030 A1 Nov. 27, 2003 Eichen US 2012/0157068 A1 June 21, 2012 Hui US 2013/0019005 A1 Jan. 17, 2013 Mathur US 2013/0128889 A1 May 23, 2013 Chang US 2013/0283364 A1 Oct. 24, 2013 Cartmell WO 2012/167184 A2 Dec. 6, 2012 Appeal 2019-001860 Application 15/221,608 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1–4, 11–13, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hui and Chang. Claims 5, 6, and 9 stand rejected2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hui, Chang, and Mathur. Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hui, Chang, and Cartmell. Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hui, Chang, and Eichen. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hui, Chang, and Gubbi. ANALYSIS Independent claims 1 and 11 recite “sending successive packets belonging to the network-traffic flow on the plurality of the network links.” The Examiner finds that paragraph 58 of Hui discloses sending successive packets on several links. Ans. 4. Appellant contends that paragraph 58 discloses that a network management server calculates likely paths for a flow to “determine what links and nodes will be affected if the request is admitted and check if the request can be satisfied” which “allows the NMS to compute the path that will be followed by the flow for which a request is being received.” (emphasis added). Computing a single path for a flow does not disclose splitting flows into several links. 2 Although the rejection states that claims 5, 6, and 9 are rejected over Hui, Chang, and Gubbi as applied to claims 1, 20, and 21 (Final Act. 7), the Examiner did not use Gubbi to reject claims 1, 20, and 21 (Final Act. 4). We view this as harmless error. Appeal 2019-001860 Application 15/221,608 4 Reply Br. 3 (quoting Hui ¶ 58). We agree with Appellant for the reasons given by Appellant in the Reply Brief. The Examiner has not persuasively explained how Hui’s disclosure of computing “the path that will be followed by the flow” teaches “sending successive packets belonging to the network-traffic flow on the plurality of the network links” as claimed. We do not sustain the rejections of claims 1–13, 16, 17, and 19–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejection of claims 1–4, 11–13, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hui and Chang is reversed. The rejection of claims 5, 6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hui, Chang, and Mathur is reversed. The rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hui, Chang, and Cartmell is reversed. The rejection of claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hui, Chang, and Eichen is reversed. The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hui, Chang, and Gubbi is reversed. Appeal 2019-001860 Application 15/221,608 5 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 11– 13, 20, 22, 23 103 Hui, Chang 1–4, 13, 20, 22, 23 5, 6, 9 103 Hui, Chang, Mathur 5, 6, 9 7, 8, 16, 17 103 Hui, Chang, Cartmell 7, 8, 16, 17 10, 19 103 Hui, Chang, Eichen 10, 19 21 103 Hui, Chang, Gubbi 21 Overall Outcome 1–13, 16, 17, 19–23 REVERSED