2020002302 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2021)

Oracle International Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 22, 2021

2020002302 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 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. 14/799,951 07/15/2015 Dan Cohn R00002NP 7389 129668 7590 07/22/2021 Invoke / Oracle 30 Wall Street #800 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 EXAMINER MA, BASIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2415 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2021 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): docketing@InvokeIP.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAN COHN Appeal 2020-002302 Application 14/799,951 Technology Center 2400 Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle International Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-002302 Application 14/799,951 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to autonomous systems with multiple egress gateways. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of operations comprising: receiving, by a device inside an Autonomous System (AS), a first packet encapsulating a second packet; decapsulating the first packet to obtain the second packet, the second packet being associated with a set of one or more characteristics; based on the set of one or more characteristics associated with the second packet: selecting a particular edge gateway, from a plurality of edge gateways of the AS, as an egress point for transmitting the second packet out of the AS to an Internet address external to the AS, wherein the set of one or more characteristics associated with the second packet does not explicitly indicate the particular edge gateway, and wherein selecting the particular edge gateway based on the set of one or more characteristics associated with the second packet comprises selecting the particular edge gateway based on one or more of: a source device associated with the second packet, a source entity associated with the second packet, a tenant or a business entity associated with the second packet, required processing associated with the second packet, a signature associated with the second packet, or a security confidentiality level associated with the second packet; re-encapsulating, by the device inside the AS, the second packet within a third packet addressed to the particular edge gateway; and transmitting the third packet to the particular edge gateway. Appeal 2020-002302 Application 14/799,951 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ward US 2007/0097974 Al May 3, 2007 Yang US 2014/0369345 Al Dec. 18, 2014 Nakil US 2015/0244617 Al Aug. 27, 2015 Kapadia US 2016/0134520 Al May 12, 2016 Babakian US 2017/0005923 Al Jan. 5, 2017 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3–9, 13, 15–21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatenable over Nakil, Kapadia, Yang, and Ward. Final Act. 3. Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatenable over Nakil, Kapadia, Yang, and Ward. Final Act. 8. Claims 10–12 and 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatenable over Nakil, Kapadia, Yang, and Babakian. Final Act. 8. OPINION To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer. On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited references for collectively teaching or suggesting the elements recited in the pending claims. Appellant argues that Yang does not teach “the set of one or more characteristics associated with the [inner] packet does not explicitly indicate the particular edge gateway.” Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends, in part, that using “a destination address to select a gateway is contrary to claim 1, which recites a variety of packet characteristics use to select ‘a particular edge gateway,’ none of which include the destination address.” Appeal 2020-002302 Application 14/799,951 4 Reply Br. 3. Moreover, Appellant argues, “the source aggregation technique described by Yang and cited in the Examiner’s Answer are incompatible with the portion of claim 1 that recites ‘wherein the set of one or more characteristics associated with the second packet does not explicitly indicate the particular edge gateway.’” Id. (citing Appeal Br. 6–7). “The source aggregation technique of Yang assigns pre-determined devices to a particular leaf node as a part of a multicast group.” Id. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the following reasons. First, Appellant focuses, in part, on the negative limitation recited in claim 1: “wherein the set of one or more characteristics associated with the second packet does not explicitly indicate the particular edge gateway.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not preclude Yang’s method of selecting an edge gateway. Ans. 5–6 (citing Yang, Fig. 6, ¶¶ 16, 18). Claim 1 merely requires that the “set of one or more characteristics” does not “explicitly indicate the particular edge gateway.” As the Examiner explains, and we agree: Source aggregation [0018 Yang] is the technique of grouping multiple VMs (e.g. vm 611, 612) to a single point (e.g. G1). Yang [0016] teaches that this approach of aggregating multiple source addresses into one (address) serves the purpose of “source address learning”. By storing the source address of the VMs into a MAC/IP binding table [0016], an association (binding) between VM (e.g. vm611, vm612) and Leaf (13) is made. Selection of Leaf 13 or 14 for traffic forwarding is based on whether the source address of the VM is stored in the MAC/IP binding table. From the VM source address, we can select whether it belongs to the group G1 or G2 edge gateway. Yang teaches selection is based on a source address and not on a destination address as alleged. Appeal 2020-002302 Application 14/799,951 5 Ans. 6–7. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Yang’s source address aggregation to either Leaf 13 or Leaf 14 teaches selecting an edge gateway (Leaf 13 or Leaf 14) based on a packet characteristic (i.e., a source address stored in MAC/IP binding table). Id. Appellant asserts that “the process of source aggregation described in Yang does ‘explicitly indicate the particular edge gateway’ through the creation of a ‘sub-tree rooted at the secondary’ rendezvous point, which is associated with a pre-assigned border leaf via a MAC/IP binding table.” Reply Br. 3. Yet, this argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, which does not preclude a “process” such as Yang’s process from associating or indicating an edge gateway. Rather, claim 1 merely recites that “the set of one or more characteristics associated with the second packet does not explicitly indicate the particular edge gateway.” (emphasis added). Thus, we see no error in the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1, the remaining pending claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We affirm the rejections. Appeal 2020-002302 Application 14/799,951 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–9, 13, 15–21, 25 103 Nakil, Kapadia, Yang, 1, 3–9, 13, 15–21, 25 2, 14 103 Nakil, Kapadia, Yang, Ward 2, 14 10–12, 22– 24 103 Nakil, Kapadia, Yang, Babakian 10–12, 22– 24 Overall Outcome 1–25 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED