Xpliant, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 30, 2020

2019004224 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
13/921,090 06/18/2013 Guy Hutchison XPLI-005/00US
318952-2005
1229
58249 7590 11/30/2020
COOLEY LLP
ATTN: IP Docketing Department
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
EXAMINER
OH, ANDREW CHUNG SUK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2020 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):
zIPPatentDocketingMailboxUS@cooley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUY HUTCHISON, TSAHI DANIEL, GERALD SCHMIDT, and
SACHIN GANDHI
___________

Appeal 2019-004224
Application 13/921,090
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–20. Final Act. 3, 6. Claim 4 is cancelled.
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims 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). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Cavium, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004224
Application 13/921,090

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Disclosed embodiments and the claimed invention relate to “switching
network data packets by enumerating a set of unique paths in a parse tree.”
Spec. ¶ 1.
Representative Claim
1. A method implemented with a hardware parser,
comprising:
constructing, with a first hardware block, a graph
characterizing a set of packet headers associated with network
traffic, wherein the graph includes links between nodes in the
graph and paths, each path being a possible combination of
packet headers through the graph, and wherein the graph has an
identifier for each path in the graph, wherein the identifier is a
number derived from a formula, wherein the number represents
a path without expressing the combination of packet headers
through the graph, wherein the identifier for each path in the
graph is stored in a path table that is evaluated for common
values, wherein a new path table is computed using the formula
upon identification of common values;
associating, with a second hardware block, a received
packet with a matched identifier in the graph corresponding to a
single path in the graph; and
reconstructing, with a third hardware block,
characteristics of the received packet based upon the matched
identifier, wherein reconstructing includes identifying a
traversed path through the graph that characterizes the packet
headers associated with the received packet.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.) (emphasis added regarding disputed
limitations).

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed May 23, 2017 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Oct. 4, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); the Answer, mailed
Feb. 15, 2018 (“Ans.”). No Reply Brief was filed.
Appeal 2019-004224
Application 13/921,090

3
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Stacy et al. (“Stacy”) US 2005/0213570 A1 Sept. 29, 2005
Arndt US 2008/0101354 A1 May 1, 2008
Beliveau et al. (“Beliveau”) US 2013/0163475 A1 June 27, 2013
Huan Liu, “Routing Table Compaction in Ternary Cam,” IEEE
Micro, 22(1):58-64, Jan.–Feb. 2002.
Rejections on Appeal
R1. Claims 1, 5–11, and 14–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Beliveau, Arndt, and
Liu. Final Act. 3, 6.
R2. Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Beliveau, Arndt, Liu,
and Stacy. Final Act. 8.
Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, and our discretion under 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of § 103 Rejection R1 of
claims 1, 5–11, and 14–19 on the basis of representative claim 1. We
separately address Rejection R2 of claims 2, 3, 12, 13, and 20, not separately
argued, infra.3

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
Appeal 2019-004224
Application 13/921,090

4
ANALYSIS
In reaching this Decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are forfeited. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s responses in
the Answer to Appellant’s arguments. We disagree with Appellant’s
arguments with respect to claim 1, and all other argued claims, and, unless
otherwise noted, regarding these claims, we incorporate by reference herein
and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and
explanations set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
Rejection R1 under § 103 of Claim 1
Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err by finding the
cited combination of Beliveau, Arndt, and Liu would have taught or
suggested a
method . . . comprising . . . constructing . . . a graph
characterizing a set of packet headers associated with network
traffic . . . wherein the identifier is a number derived from a
formula, wherein the number represents a path without
expressing the combination of packet headers through the
graph [,]

dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2019-004224
Application 13/921,090

5
within the meaning of independent claim 1?4 (emphasis added regarding
disputed limitations).
Analysis
Appellant argues Beliveau does not teach a path table that uses
identifiers, but instead discloses “a path table with keys expressing the
combination of packet headers through a graph.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant
specifically argues
The claimed path table omits such a feature [referring to
Beliveau’s path table] and instead uses the claimed identifier.
That is, the claim specifies an identifier derived from a formula,
where the number represents a path without expressing the
combination of packet headers through the graph. The
‘identifier’ in Beliveau expresses the combination of packet
headers through the graph. Thus, the combination of Liu and
Beliveau at best teaches a path table with identifiers that
express the combination of packet headers through the graph.
Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Appellant is
arguing the references separately when the rejection is for obviousness based
upon what the reference combination would have suggested to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations
of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The
Examiner cites Arndt, not Beliveau and Liu, for teaching or at least
suggesting this disputed wherein clause. Final Act. 4–5, Ans. 10–11.

4 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation (“BRI”) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2019-004224
Application 13/921,090

6
Appellant further argues there is no motivation to modify Beliveau
with Liu nor Arndt. Appeal Br. 3, 5. However, we find the Examiner has
provided articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of
these references. Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 11–14. On this record, we are not
persuaded the Examiner's proffered combination would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). The
Supreme Court further guides that “familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 402.
Appellant also argues Liu “does not contemplate the claimed
computation of a new path table using a formula upon identification of
common values.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant specifically argues
[t]he prior art of record does not have a path table with an
identifier that is a number derived from a formula, where the
number represents a path without expressing the combination of
packet headers through the graph. Since such an identifier is
absent in the prior art so too is a comparison between such
identifiers to determine whether a new path table should be
created.
Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Appellant is
again arguing the references separately when the rejection is for obviousness
based upon what the reference combination would have suggested to a
person of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner cites Arndt, not Liu, for
teaching or at least suggesting a path table where the graph’s identifier is a
number derived from a formula. Final Act. 4–5, Ans. 12–13. Moreover,
Appeal 2019-004224
Application 13/921,090

7
Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief rebutting the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions in the Examiner’s Answer.
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has
erred in finding that the combination of Beliveau, Arndt, and Liu teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness Rejection R1 of
independent claim 1, and grouped claims 5–11 and 14–19, which fall
therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
Rejection R2 under § 103 of Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, and 20
In view of the lack of any substantive arguments directed to
obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 2, 3, 12, 13, and 20 under § 103 (see
Appeal Br. 5), we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–3 and 5–20 as being
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, over the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited references.

Appeal 2019-004224
Application 13/921,090

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Rej. Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
R1 1, 5–11,
14–19
103 Beliveau, Arndt,
Liu
1, 5–11,
14–19

R2 2, 3, 12,
13, 20
103 Beliveau, Arndt,
Liu, Stacy
2, 3, 12,
13, 20

Overall
Outcome
1–3,
5–20

FINALITY AND 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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED