Xpliant, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 30, 20202019004224 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2020) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation