Nicira, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 9, 20212020001663 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/181,685 06/14/2016 Teemu Koponen N001.14.CIP7.C1 (P0013C) 7865 109858 7590 06/09/2021 ADELI LLP P.O. Box 516 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 EXAMINER SHAO, HONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2021 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, MARTIN CASADO, JEREMY STRIBLING, and NATASHA GUDE ____________________ Appeal 2020-001663 Application 15/181,685 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 through 30, 32 through 37, 39 through 44, 46 and 47.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, VMware, Inc., and Nicira, Inc. are the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 31, 38, and 45. Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-001663 Application 15/181,685 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate generally to a control system including several controllers for managing several switching elements. Abstract. Claim 28 is reproduced below. 28. A method for implementing a logical switching element (LSE), the method comprising: at a first controller, receiving a definition of the LSE that spans at least first and second host computers and is implemented by first and second physical switching elements (PSEs) executing on the first and second host computers; based on the received definition, generating first and second configuration data sets for configuring the first and second PSEs, respectively, to implement the LSE; supplying the generated first configuration data set to the first PSE to configure the first PSE to process network traffic to implement the LSE; and supplying the generated second configuration data set to a second controller for the second controller to supply the generated second configuration data set to the second PSE to configure the second PSE to process network traffic to implement the LSE, wherein the second controller does not generate additional configuration data to implement the LSE on the second PSE. EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS3 The Examiner rejects claims 28 through 30, 32 through 37, 39 through 3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 9, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed December 23, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 21, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 23, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-001663 Application 15/181,685 3 44, 46 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Brandwine (US 8,239,572 B1; Aug. 7, 2012) and Hayashi (US 2011/0292949 A1; Dec. 1, 2011). Non-Final Act. 4–9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant presents several arguments asserting error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 28, 35, and 42. Appeal Br. 10– 15, Reply Br. 2–5. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Brandwine and Hayashi teaches supplying a second configuration data set to a second controller for the second controller to supply to the second physical switching element, where the second controller does not generate additional configuration data to implement the logical switching element on the second physical switching element, as recited in each of independent claims 28, 35, and 42. The Examiner’s rejection of each of the claims cites to Hayashi as teaching this disputed limitation. Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Hayashi Figs. 13, 16, ¶¶ 147, 205, 206, and 221–223). Further, in response to Appellant’s arguments directed to this limitation, the Examiner states: Hayashi teaches wherein the second controller does not generate additional configuration data to implement the LSE on the second PSE ( Fig 13-15, [0205]-[0206], [0217]-[0219], a controller (e.g 10B) calculate a PATH ID, and would forward/inform it to other controllers (e.g 10A, 10C), the new path ID across plural domains for each nodes to do path setting, Appeal 2020-001663 Application 15/181,685 4 other controllers received the path ID doesn’t change it but instruct each node in its domain to perform path setting). Moreover, the path ID is shared across controllers instead of each controller calculates it independently by its own after receiving the path ID, and the claimed language doesn’t define any “additional configuration data”. Thus, Hayashi teaches wherein the second controller does not generate additional configuration data to implement the LSE on the second PSE. Ans. 5. We have reviewed the cited teachings of Hayashi and disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Hayashi teaches the disputed limitations. Each of independent claims 28, 35, and 42 recites limitations directed to a first and second configuration data set to configure physical switching elements to implement a logical switching element, where the first controller supplies the second configuration data to the second controller and wherein the second controller does not generate additional configuration data to implement the logical switching element. We have reviewed the teachings of Hayashi cited by the Examiner and concur with the Examiner that Hayashi teaches that there are plural controllers to control a communication path across domains from one node to another and that path information is communicated from one controller to another. However, we disagree with the Examiner that Hayashi teaches that the controllers do not generate additional configuration data. Hayashi teaches that each controller has its own route calculation section for the portion of the path in its domain Hayashi ¶ 205. Further, Hayashi teaches that if there is a route rearrangement, one controller (10B, of domain B) informs the controllers (10A and 10C of domains A and C) of a path to be rearranged by path ID. See Hayashi ¶¶ 206, 209, 210. However, this does not teach the claimed feature of the controllers not generating additional configuration data as each Appeal 2020-001663 Application 15/181,685 5 of controllers 10A and 10C has their own route calculating section to calculate the route through the domain. Id. Inasmuch as the Examiner’s rationale is that the path ID in Hayashi does not change, we do not find that the cited section of Hayashi meets the disputed claim limitation. The Examiner has not shown that the path ID of Hayashi is configuration data to configure the physical switch element. Rather, the path ID appears to be used to identify one path and the controllers 10A, 10B and 10C, calculate the route (the configuration of the switching) for the path through the individual domains. Thus, we do no not find that the Examiner has shown that the combination of Brandwine and Hayashi teaches all of the limitations of independent claims 28, 35, and 42 and the claims which depend thereupon. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 28 through 30, 32 through 37, 39 through 44, 46, and 47. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 28–30, 32– 37, 39–44, 46, 47 103(a) Brandwine, Hayashi 28–30, 32– 37, 39–44, 46, 47 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation