Ex Parte Bhatia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 2014

12258230 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAGJEET BHATIA, YOGESH PETKAR, and IGNATIUS SANTOSO ____________ Appeal 2011-011613 Application 12/258,230 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JAMES T. MOORE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2011-011613 Application 12/258,230 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention profiles received traffic (e.g., voice, data, video, etc.) by (1) classifying different types of traffic using different types of service access points (SAPs), and (2) applying associated profiles to the classified traffic. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative with our emphasis: 1. A method for profiling traffic which is received at a plurality of ports of a device, the device comprising a processor that interfaces with memory to execute processor-executable instructions, said method comprising executing the processor- executable instructions to perform the steps of: receiving different types of traffic at the plurality of ports; classifying the different types of traffic using different types of service access points; and applying profiles of the different types of service access points to the corresponding, classified different types of traffic, wherein a same type of traffic received by at least two ports of the plurality of ports shares a profile of a corresponding, classified service access point. THE REJECTIONS1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Johnson (US 2008/0084866 A1; published Apr. 10, 2008; filed Oct. 10, 2006) and Wei (US 2007/0192481 A1; published Aug. 16, 2007). Ans. 3-9. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed January 21, 2011 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 13, 2011 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 10, 2011 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2011-011613 Application 12/258,230 3 The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Johnson, Wei, and Cesa Klein (US 7,543,052 B1; issued June 2, 2009; filed Dec. 22, 2003). Ans. 9-10. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Johnson, Wei, and Arndt (US 2008/0101354 A1; published May 1, 2008; filed Oct. 31, 2006). Ans. 10-15. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER JOHNSON AND WEI The Examiner finds that Johnson’s traffic profiling method discloses, among other things, (1) receiving different types of traffic via data packets at plural ports, and (2) classifying that traffic using different types of SAPs via SAP values associated with the packets. Ans. 3-5, 16-17. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Johnson does not disclose explicitly that at least two ports receive the same type of traffic, the Examiner cites Wei as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 5-6. Appellants argue that Johnson does not classify different types of traffic using different types of SAPs, let alone do so where the same type of traffic is received at multiple ports, as claimed. App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1-2. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Johnson and Wei collectively would have taught or suggested classifying different types of traffic using different types of SAPs, where a same traffic type is received at plural ports? Appeal 2011-011613 Application 12/258,230 4 ANALYSIS As noted above, this dispute hinges on whether the Examiner erred in finding that Johnson classifies different types of traffic using different types of SAPs. Appellants’ Specification refers to these different SAP types in connection with numerals 114a through 114n in Figure 1. Spec 5:14-16. These SAPs are described as “[p]oints where the customer traffic 110a, 110b…110n ingress or egress the device 102a.” Spec. 7:5-7. Appellants’ Figure 2 details a classification method that applies an SAP for all types of traffic (an “all” SAP) or an SAP for a Customer Virtual Local Area Network (CVLAN), depending on traffic tagging. Spec. 10:1–12:7. Although this description does not limit our interpretation of the recited classification step, it nonetheless informs our understanding of what constitutes different types of SAPs, and how they are used to classify different types of received traffic as claimed. Turning to the rejection, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Johnson’s attribute-based SAP values 622-1 in Figure 6 for at least suggesting using different types SAPs to classify different types of traffic. See Ans. 4, 16-17 (citing Johnson ¶¶ 0047, 0062). First, it is undisputed that these values are identifying labels for network endpoints that are used in Open System Interconnect (OSI) networking. Ans. 16; Reply Br. 1 (acknowledging this finding). This finding reasonably comports with Appellants’ description of SAPs noted above, namely points where traffic ingresses or egresses a device. Spec. 7:5-7. Second, Johnson classifies received data packets according to rules that can include an arbitrary combination of attributes associated with the packets—attributes that may Appeal 2011-011613 Application 12/258,230 5 correspond to multiple OSI layers as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 16 (citing Johnson ¶¶ 0025, 0028). These findings, then, at least suggest that Johnson’s attribute-based SAP values identify different network endpoints that are associated with at least different OSI layers such as those shown in Johnson’s Figure 1 and, therefore, constitute different types of SAPs at least in that sense. See Johnson ¶¶ 0029-31 (describing these layers). Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner’s position that at least these different types of SAPs would be used to classify different types of received traffic as claimed. Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 1-2) are unavailing, for they do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings in this regard. And to the extent that Appellants contend that this classification does not occur where the same type of traffic is received at multiple ports as claimed (see App. Br. 5), such an argument is unavailing, for it does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Johnson’s and Wei’s collective teachings for these features. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 7-9 not argued separately with particularity. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4-6 and 10-12. Ans. 9-15. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 1 and allege that the additional cited references fail to cure those purported Appeal 2011-011613 Application 12/258,230 6 deficiencies. App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-12 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED Vsh