Nicira, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2021

2019006107 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2021)

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.
14/687,869 04/15/2015 Teemu Koponen N023.05.D1 (P0116DIV1) 1001
109858 7590 02/02/2021
ADELI LLP
P.O. Box 516
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
EXAMINER
BELL, KALISH K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2432
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2021 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 TEEMU KOPONEN, RONGHUA ZHANG,
PANKAJ THAKKAR, and MARTIN CASADO

Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869
Technology Center 2400

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22, 23, and 25–42, all of the claims
pending in the application.1 Appeal Br. 25–29 (Claims App.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as VMware,
Inc., and Nicira, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates to a system that allows several
different logical firewalls to be specified for several different logical
networks. Spec. 3:1–3. The logical firewall for a particular logical network
is distributed across different physical machines that also host virtual
machines of that logical network. Id. at 3:4–6. Each firewall analyzes
received data packets, based on a stored set of rules, to determine whether
the packets should be allowed through or rejected. Id. at 3:16–19.
Independent claim 22 is illustrative:
22. For a firewall application operating on a physical
machine, a method for implementing a distributed firewall for a
logical network implemented across a plurality of managed
forwarding elements, the method comprising:
receiving a packet, from a managed forwarding element
operating within the physical machine, through a software port
between the managed forwarding element and the firewall
application;
identifying which of a plurality of sets of processing rules
applies to the packet, wherein each set of processing rules is for
implementing a different one of a plurality of distributed
firewalls, wherein (i) each of the distributed firewalls is for a
different one of a plurality of logical networks, (ii) each of the
respective distributed firewalls is implemented by a respective
plurality of firewall applications operating on a respective
plurality of physical machines, (iii) each respective logical
network logically connects a respective set of end machines
operating on a respective plurality of physical machines, and
(iv) each respective logical network is implemented by a
respective plurality of managed forwarding elements operating
on the respective plurality of physical machines;
determining whether to allow the packet based on the identified
set of processing rules; and
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

3
when the packet is allowed, sending the packet back to the
managed forwarding element through the software port.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Jain et al. (“Jain”) US 2003/0131116 A1 July 10, 2003
Wesinger, Jr. et al.
(“Wesinger”)
US 2007/0101421 A1 May 3, 2007
Trojanowski US 2009/0025077 A1 Jan. 22, 2009
Soundararajan US 2010/0125667 A1 May 20, 2010
Srinivasan et al.
(“Srinivasan”)
US 2011/0255538 A1 Oct. 20, 2011

REJECTIONS
Claims 22, 23, 25–34, 36–40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Trojanowski, Srinivasan,
Wesinger, and Soundararajan.
Claims 35 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Trojanowski, Srinivasan, Soundararajan,
and Jain.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections in light of
Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. See generally, Final
Act.; Ans.; Appeal Br.; Reply Br. The issues presented by Appellant are
whether the Examiner’s combination of references teaches or suggests each
and every limitation of the claims on appeal, and whether the Examiner
presents a sufficient reason to combine the references. Appeal Br. 6–8. We
are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

4
combination fails to teach or suggest any particular element of the claims.
We begin our analysis with claim 22.
1. Examiner’s combination
The Examiner finds Trojanowski to teach or suggest a firewall
application operating on a physical machine having a method including the
“identifying which of a plurality of sets of processing rules applies to the
packet,” “determining whether to allow the packet,” and “when the packet is
allowed, sending the packet back” steps of the claimed invention. That is,
the Examiner finds Trojanowski to describe, for a firewall application (125)
operating on a physical machine (120), a method of implementing a
distributed firewall (151), the method comprising receiving a packet (340),
identifying which of a plurality of sets of rules (145a…n) applies to the
packet, where each set of rules is for implementing a different distributed
firewall, and determining whether to allow the packet and sending it along if
allowed (Figure 5). Final Act. 7–8.
The Examiner relies on Srinivasan for teaching the receiving of a
packet (616) from a managed forwarding element (630) within a physical
machine (106) through a software port (612) between the managed
forwarding element and the firewall application. Id. at 9 (citing Srinivasan
Fig. 6A, ¶ 38). The Examiner further relies upon Srinivasan for teaching
that each of the distributed firewalls (112) is for a different one of a plurality
of logical networks (106). Id. (citing Srinivasan Fig. 1, ¶ 25). The
Examiner also relies upon Srinivasan for teaching, when a packet is allowed,
sending it back to the managed forwarding element through the software
port (612). Id. (citing Srinivasan ¶ 38).
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

5
The Examiner relies upon Wesinger for teaching that each set of
processing rules (CN, Fig. 5) is for implementing a different one of a
plurality of distributed firewalls (VHN, Fig. 5). Id. at 10.
The Examiner relies upon Soundararajan for teaching that each
respective logical network (102, Fig. 2) logically connects a respective set of
end machines (200–206, Fig. 3A) operating on a respective plurality of
physical machines, and is implemented by a plurality of respective managed
forwarding elements (110, 114). Id. at 10–11 (citing Soundararajan ¶¶ 15–
17, 21, 24). The Examiner further relies upon Soundararajan for teaching
application to a distributed computing environment across a plurality of
physical machines. Id. at 11; Ans. 10.
2. Multiple distributed firewalls/physical machines
First, Appellant argues that the combination does not teach or suggest
multiple distributed firewalls, each being for a different logical network, that
are each implemented by multiple firewall applications operating on
multiple physical machines. Appeal Br. 6, 8. Appellant argues that
Trojanowski discloses only a single firewall that is divided into discrete
steps implemented in multiple modules within a security agent on a single
host. Id. at 12. Appellant further argues that Srinivasan teaches separate,
distinct firewalls for their respective servers, not distributed firewalls. Id.
at 13. Appellant further argues that Wesinger teaches different virtual hosts
executing on a single firewall physical machine (500), and are not
distributed firewalls because they all execute on a single physical machine.
Id. at 13–14. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on
Soundararajan to teach or suggest application of distributed firewalls to
multiple physical machines amounts to a change in the Examiner’s position
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

6
from the Final Action, in which the Examiner cited Soundararajan only for
limitations relating to the logical network. Reply Br. 9.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has ignored the claim
limitation that each distributed firewall is implemented across multiple
physical machines. Id. at 12. Appellant states, “a distributed firewall is not
merely a firewall for which [a] configuration has been sent (distributed) to a
host to implement a firewall or a set of separate firewalls spread out
(distributed) throughout a physical network.” Reply Br. 8. Appellant argues
that the claim language requires that the firewall be implemented on multiple
machines. Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded by this argument that none of the references, or
their combination, teaches or suggests implementing a distributed firewall
across multiple machines. The test for obviousness is “what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the
Examiner relies upon a combination of, inter alia, Wesinger’s teaching of
firewalls distributed among virtual machines, and Soundararajan’s teaching
that a distributed computing environment may be across a plurality of
physical machines. Appellant argues that Wesinger does not teach plural
physical machines, and that Soundararajan was newly applied to firewalls,
but has not explained why their combination does not teach or suggest the
claimed “each of the respective distributed firewalls is implemented by a
respective plurality of firewall applications operating on a respective
plurality of physical machines.” Consequently, Appellant’s piecemeal
arguments against the individual references are not persuasive.
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

7
Nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s arguments against the
Examiner’s reliance on Soundararajan’s teachings as related to multiple
distributed firewalls, because they are allegedly newly presented in the
Examiner’s Answer. The rules provide for seeking review of an alleged
undesignated new ground of rejection in an Examiner’s Answer, and any
such review “must be by way of a petition to the Director under § 1.181 of
this title,” and be timely filed. 37 C.F.R. § 41.40 (2018). Because § 41.40
provides a separate and exclusive procedure for addressing alleged new
findings and conclusions in an Examiner’s Answer, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s request in the Reply Brief to discount such alleged new
positions by the Examiner.
3. Multiple logical networks/end machines
Next, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination does not
disclose or suggest multiple logical networks connecting sets of end
machines on multiple physical machines. Appeal Br. 6, 14–15. Appellant
argues against the Examiner’s reliance on Soundararajan’s ESX server 102
as the claimed logical network, and on ESX servers 200–206 as the claimed
end machines connected by the logical network. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant
argues that Soundararajan describes individual physical machines (servers)
internally operating independent logical networks, not multiple physical
machines, each operating at least one end machine, that are connected by a
logical network that spans the multiple physical machines. Reply Br. 11.
Appellant further argues against the Examiner’s interpretation of
Srinivasan as teaching servers 106 that logically connect a set of end
machines 110 operating on multiple physical machines, relying on the
connectivity of the devices to show those logical connections. Id. Appellant
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

8
argues that the Examiner has failed to explain how the end devices appear to
be connected so as to read on the claimed limitations. Id. Appellant further
argues that the Examiner has improperly changed position in the Examiner’s
Answer. Id. at 11–12.
With respect to the argument that Srinivasan, by itself, does not teach
or suggest the claimed limitations, the Examiner does not rely on Srinivasan
for the entirety of the disputed limitation. The Examiner states,
“Trojanowski in view of Srinivasan does not explicitly disclose . . . each
respective logical network logically connects a respective set of end
machines operating on a respective plurality of physical machines,.” Final
Act. 10. Further, although Appellant alleges a change of position in the
Examiner’s Answer, Appellant has not followed the exclusive procedure set
forth in 37 C.F.R. § 41.40 for seeking relief of alleged new arguments in an
Examiner’s Answer. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
request in the Reply Brief to discount such alleged new arguments.
With respect to the combined teachings of Soundararajan and
Srinivasan, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s combination does not
teach or suggest multiple logical networks connecting sets of end machines
on multiple physical machines. The test for obviousness is “what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Here, the Examiner relies
upon a combination of, inter alia, Srinivasan’s teaching of servers 106 that
logically connect a set of end machines 110 in a logical network having one
of a plurality of distributed firewalls 112 (Final Act. 9; Srinivasan Fig. 1;
Ans. 20), and Soundararajan’s teaching that end machines operating on a
logical network can be implemented as operating on multiple physical
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

9
machines (Final Act. 10; Ans. 19). Appellant has not persuasively explained
why their combination does not teach or suggest the claimed “each
respective logical network logically connects a respective set of end
machines operating on a respective plurality of physical machines.”
Consequently, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in finding the
claimed combination to teach or suggest this limitation.
4. Multiple logical networks/forwarding elements
Next, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination does not
disclose or suggest multiple logical networks that are each implemented by
multiple managed forwarding elements operating on multiple physical
machines. Appeal Br. 6, 16. Appellant argues that the Examiner interprets
the ESX servers in Soundararajan as corresponding to logical networks, and
interprets two virtual switches 110 and 114 within the ESX server 102 as
corresponding to the managed forwarding elements (“MFEs”) that
implement the logical network. Id. at 16. Appellant argues that these virtual
switches merely operate on the ESX server, and do not “implement” the
ESX server; i.e., the logical network. Id. Appellant further argues that each
ESX server is a single physical server, not multiple physical servers as
claimed. Id. at 16–17. Appellant clarifies, “individual physical machines
(servers) internally operating independent logical networks using internal
forwarding elements as in Soundararajan is not equivalent to multiple
physical machines each operating at least one MFE that implement a logical
network.” Reply Br. 12 (citing claim 22).
We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed, we agree that
the Examiner has shown the combination of references to teach or suggest
“each respective logical network logically connects a respective set of end
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

10
machines operating on a respective plurality of physical machines.” Supra
at 8–9. Further, it is not contested by Appellant that Soundararajan teaches
or suggests virtual switches operating on the ESX servers, i.e., the logical
networks. Appellant argues that these switches do not “implement” the
logical network, but does not explain how their operation is not
implementation. Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner cites switches 110 and 114
as the MFEs; Soundararajan describes these switches as providing access to
an external local area network and to each of the virtual machines,
respectively. Soundararajan ¶ 16. Thus, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner errs in characterizing the action of the switches as “implementing”
the logical network.
Nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s argument against the
Examiner’s reliance on MFEs within a single server; i.e., a single logical
network. As discussed, we agreed with the Examiner’s finding that
Srinivasan taught or suggested servers that logically connect a set of end
machines operating on multiple physical machines. Supra at 8–9. In
arguing solely against the teachings of Soundararajan, Appellant has not
explained how the combined teachings of Soundararajan and Srinivasan fail
to teach or suggest the claimed “each respective logical network is
implemented by a respective plurality of managed forwarding elements
operating on the respective plurality of physical machines.” Consequently,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in finding the claimed
combination to teach or suggest this limitation.
5. Hindsight reconstruction of the claim
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination of Trojanowski,
Srinivasan, Wesinger, and Soundararajan “appears to start from the
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

11
conclusion that the claim is obvious and then, using hindsight, find[s] pieces
of the claimed invention in disparate references.” Appeal Br. 19. It has
been noted that,
[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill [in the art] at the time the claimed invention
was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from
applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is “not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference,” but instead “what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
The Examiner, starting with Trojanowski’s teachings, has provided
reasons for combining the teachings of each additional reference with those
of Trojanowski. In combining Srinivasan, the Examiner states,
it would have been obvious to respectively incorporate
Srinivasan’s foregoing (1) virtual forwarding technique and (2)
plurality of logical networks into (1) the system of Trojanowski
and (2) its networks, in order to: (1) make it more
comprehensive by providing the system with a scheme for
forwarding its packets to and from its virtual firewall(s) for
processing (see Srinivasan ¶ 38); and (2) to provide
Trojanowski’s networks with a topology for their firewalls (see
Srinivasan ¶ 25), respectively.
Final Act. 9. Appellant asserts that Trojanowski does not need to forward
packets to and from virtual firewalls or be provided a topology for its
firewalls, and thus neither reason would provide an advantage that would
suggest such a combination with Srinivasan. Appeal Br. 18. The Examiner
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

12
responds to this argument by highlighting the relevant findings in the Final
Action, citing to Trojanowski’s description of a firewall application
receiving a packet and, when the packet passes the filtering operation,
sending the packet. Ans. 22 (citing Trojanowski ¶¶ 50, 74; Figs. 3, 5). We
agree, in the absence of explanation by the Appellant, why those sections do
not teach packet forwarding to and from firewalls, that the discussion of
packet operations involving the filtering operation in Trojanowski supports
the Examiner’s finding. We do not agree with the Examiner’s alternate
motivation, based on a perceived “level of abstraction” of claim 22, because
the Examiner does not explain how that would motivate one having ordinary
skill in the art to combine the two art teachings. Id. However, our
agreement with one of the Examiner’s two alternative reasons to combine
Trojanowski and Srinivasan is sufficient, and we are not persuaded that the
Examiner’s reason includes knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s
disclosure.
In combining Wesinger, the Examiner states,
it would have been obvious to incorporate Wesinger’s
foregoing processing rule technique into the system of
Trojanowski in view of Srinivasan in order to make it more
comprehensive by thus enabling the system to customize the
configuration of each of its firewalls individually (see Wesinger
¶[¶] 76, 79).
Final Act. 10. Appellant argues that Wesinger initializes multiple virtual
hosts in a physical firewall machine, which would “not make sense to
implement a firewall that is not assumed to have the defects relating to proxy
use that Wesinger was trying to remedy.” Appeal Br. 18
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds advantage in adding the
ability to customize the configuration of each of its firewalls individually.
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

13
Final Act. 10; Ans. 24. Appellant argues that Wesinger’s features would
only be relevant to a system having Wesinger’s specific problem; i.e., the
defects relating to proxy use that Wesinger was trying to remedy. However,
the reason for combining references is not limited to the purpose or problem
addressed by Appellant, but “any need or problem known in the field and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed . . . a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007). Thus, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner’s motivation of individual customization is improper
motivation to combine the teachings and suggestions of Wesinger with those
of Trojanowski and Srinivasan.
In combining Soundararajan, the Examiner states,
it would have been obvious to incorporate Soundara[ra]jan’s
distributed logical network topology into the system of
Trojanowski in view of Srinivasan further in view of
Wesinger’s logical networks in order to improve stability, thus
making the system more robust: (1) by having its logical
networks manage their internal and external traffic
independently of one another and (2) by implementing the
system’s logical networks in a distributed computing
environment (see Soundararajan ¶[¶] 4, 5, 16).
Final Act. 11.
Appellant argues that Soundararajan’s benefit of providing networks
internal to individual machines does not provide a motivation to incorporate
any elements of Soundararajan into a networking context across multiple
physical machines. Appeal Br. 18–19.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds advantages both in
Soundararajan’s “improved stability” and in the advantages of
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

14
Soundararajan’s “distributed computing environment; i.e., across multiple
physical machines. Ans. 10. Further, Appellant’s argument does not take
into account the “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The person of ordinary
skill is the person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that one having ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the
advantages found by the Examiner as a reason to combine the teachings of
Soundararajan with those of Trojanowski, Srinivasan, and Wesinger.
Consequently, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner’s reason to
combine the teachings or suggestions of the references “includes knowledge
gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure.” Thus, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s motivation for combining the
teachings of the references relies improperly on hindsight reconstruction of
the claim.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. The Examiner advanced a separate reason
for obviousness, based upon a finding that certain elements of the claim
were merely intended use. Final Act. 2–3. Because we agree with the
Examiner that all such elements are taught or suggested by the applied prior
art references, we need not address this alternate argument.
Appellant argues against the rejection of independent claim 36 on the
same reasoning as claim 22. Because independent claim 36 is rejected under
the same rationale, and using the same combination of prior art references as
claim 22, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
36. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 36.
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

15
6. Dependent claims 23, 25–34, 36–40, and 42
a) Claims 23 and 37
Appellant argues that the references cited by the Examiner do not
teach or suggest the limitation that multiple sets of processing rules are
received from a network control system that also configures the managed
forwarding element. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant argues that Wesinger is cited
for sets of processing rules, Trojanowski for the network control system
from which the processing rules are received, and Srinivasan for configuring
the managed forwarding element. Id. Appellant argues that none of the
references individually teach the entirety of the limitation. Id. Reply Br.
14–15.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner has pointed to
each element of the limitation either in individual references or in their
arrangement as combined in the rejection. Appellant does not explain how
the combined teachings of Wesinger, Trojanowski, and Srinivasan do not
teach or suggest the claimed limitation. The test for obviousness is “what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Consequently, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner errs in finding the combined teachings of
Wesinger, Trojanowski, and Srinivasan do not teach or suggest the claimed
limitation, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 37.
b) Claim 25
Appellant argues that the references do not teach or suggest claim
25’s limitation of a logical network logically connecting a set of end
machines through a set of logical forwarding elements. Appeal Br. 20–21.
Appellant argues that the Examiner relies upon the same elements as being
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

16
both the managed forwarding elements and the logical forwarding elements.
Id. The Examiner replies that “element 630 of FIG. 6A conflates the
features of Srinivasan's managed forwarding element 212 and Srinivasan’s
logical forwarding element 108, which are illustrated separately in FIG. 2 of
Srinivasan.” Ans. 29. In response, Appellant argues that “elements 212 and
108 are a hypervisor and a virtual switch while element 630 is a virtual
switch.” Reply Br. 16 (citing Srinivasan ¶¶ 24, 27, 38). Appellant argues
that the Examiner does not support the assertion that a hypervisor is a
managed forwarding element, or that a virtual switch is a logical forwarding
element. Id.
The Federal Circuit has explained the burdens on Examiner and
Appellant during patent examination:
The concept of prima facie obviousness establishes the
framework for the obviousness determination and the burdens
the parties face. See Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool
Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed.Cir.2015). Under this
framework, the patent examiner must first set forth a prima
facie case, supported by evidence, showing why the claims at
issue would have been obvious in light of the prior art. In re
Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2007). Once the
examiner sets out this prima facie case, the burden shifts to the
patentee to provide evidence, in the prior art or beyond it, or
argument sufficient to rebut the examiner’s evidence.
ACCO Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc., 813 F.3d 1361, 1365–1366 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Here, the Examiner has pointed to two elements, Srinivasan’s
managed forwarding element 212 and Srinivasan’s logical forwarding
element 108, as teaching or suggesting the claimed managed forwarding
element and the claimed logical forwarding element, respectively. Appellant
argues that the Examiner has not provided further support to show that these
elements 212 and 108 actually do correspond to those features. However,
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

17
the Examiner has met their burden by explaining what features in Srinivasan
correspond to the claimed features. The burden now shifts to Appellant to
explain why those features in Srinivasan do not correspond to the claimed
features.
Appellant has characterized elements 212 and 108 as a hypervisor and a
virtual switch. However, Appellant does not explain why a hypervisor does
not teach a managed forwarding element and why a virtual switch does not
teach a logical forwarding element. Srinivasan, at the location cited by the
Examiner, describes that the virtual switch 108 “routes traffic between the
VMs [(virtual machines)]” and that the hypervisor 212 “dynamically
allocates hardware resources to the virtual machines.” Srinivasan ¶ 27.
Appellant characterizes the logical forwarding element as connecting a set of
end machines. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant characterizes the managed
forwarding element as implementing a logical network that connects a set of
end machines. Id. Appellant has not explained how the elements of
Srinivasan are inconsistent with the Appellant’s explanation of the
corresponding claim terms. Thus, Appellant has not met its burden to show
error in the Examiner’s finding.
Further, Appellant’s characterization of elements 212 and 108 appears to
admit, contrary to the argument in the Appeal Brief, that the Examiner maps
separate elements to the separate claimed managed forwarding element and
logical forwarding element.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 25, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim.
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

18
c) Claim 26
Appellant argues that none of the references disclose or suggest a
logical router implemented by the managed forwarding element. Appeal Br.
21. Appellant further argues that the Examiner identifies the same element,
Srinivasan element 630, for the logical router and the managed forwarding
element. Id. The Examiner replies that Srinivasan’s element 212 is a
managed forwarding element that implements a virtual switch whose ports
route traffic according to its network policy. Ans. 31. The Examiner finds
this switch to be a local router implemented by the managed forwarding
element. Appellant responds that the Examiner does not support the
assertion that a hypervisor is a managed forwarding element, or that a virtual
switch is a logical router. Reply Br. 17. Appellant further responds that the
Examiner mischaracterizes the switch as a router, replacing “directs” with
“routes” in support of that characterization. Id.
We are not persuaded by this argument. As for claim 25, Appellant
does not explain why Srinivasan’s hypervisor that dynamically allocates
hardware resources to virtual machines does not teach or suggest the claimed
managed forwarding element. Nor does Appellant explain why Srinivasan’s
virtual switch does not teach or suggest the claimed logical router. Thus,
Appellant has not met its burden to show error in the Examiner’s finding.
Further, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Srinivasan states that the virtual
switch “routes traffic.” Srinivasan ¶ 27. Consequently, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 26, and sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of that claim.
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

19
d) Claim 27
Appellant argues against the rejection of claim 27 on the same
reasoning as presented for claim 25; i.e., that the references do not disclose
or suggest a set of logical forwarding elements implemented by the managed
forwarding element, and that the same element is identified as both the
managed forwarding element and the logical forwarding element. Appeal
Br. 22. We find this argument unpersuasive for the same reasons that we
found this argument unpersuasive for claim 25, and we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 27.
e) Claims 32 and 39
Appellant argues that the references do not disclose or suggest a
second slice identifier for a second set of processing rules associated with a
distributed firewall for a second logical network.
The Examiner cited Trojanowski as teaching or suggesting a second
slice identifier, and Wesinger as teaching or suggesting a second set of
processing rules C2 for implementing a second distributed firewall, and
Soundararajan for a second logical network. Final Act. 16. Appellant
argues that the “‘config_object_pointer’ in Trojanowski that identifies a
configuration for a firewall at a particular point in time for a same
physical network,” and the “processing rules in Wesinger that is used by a
particular virtual host that is unrelated to any appended slice identifier” do
not relate to the claimed second slice identifier. Appeal Br. 23. Appellant
argues that these relate to configurations of a physical network, not to a
logical network. Id. at 23. The Examiner replies that the rejection relies
upon Soundararajan for the second logical network, and that Appellant has
not taken into account that teaching. Ans. 34–35 (citing Final Act. 16).
Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

20
Appellant responds with the argument that the combination does not relate
the second slide identifier to a second logical network. Reply Br. 18.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner has pointed to
each element of the limitation either in individual references or in their
arrangement as combined in the rejection. Appellant does not explain how
the combined teachings of Wesinger, Trojanowski, and Soundararajan do
not teach or suggest the claimed limitation. The test for obviousness is
“what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Consequently,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in finding the combined
teachings of Wesinger, Trojanowski, and Soundararajan do not teach or
suggest the claimed limitation, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 32 and 39.
f) Claims 28–31, 33–36, and 40–42
Appellant has argued against the rejection of claims 28–31, 33–36,
and 40–42 only on the same reasons as against the rejection of claims 22 and
36. Because we have not found that reasoning persuasive, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 28–31, 33–36, and 40–42.
DECISION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 22, 23, and 25–42 as being obvious over the applied references
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2019-006107
Application 14/687,869

21
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
22, 23,
25–34,
36–40, 42
103(a) Trojanowski,
Srinivasan, Wesinger,
Soundararajan
22, 23, 25–
34, 36–40, 42

35, 41 103(a) Trojanowski,
Srinivasan,
Soundararajan, Jain
35, 41
Overall
Outcome
22, 23, 25–42

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED