Nicira, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 9, 2021

2020001663 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 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.
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2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 31, 38, and 45.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