Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2015

11687545 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2015)

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.
11/687,545 03/16/2007 Jeremy Ray Brown IDR-1015 / 26530.127 8392
47699 7590 03/12/2015
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (26530)
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
DUONG, DUC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEREMY RAY BROWN
____________

Appeal 2012-012372
Application 11/687,545
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant
1
appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
Appellant identifies Novell, Inc. as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2012-012372
Application 11/687,545

2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to multi-layer distributed switching in a
network environment. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A distributed switching system comprising:
a plurality of hardware computing nodes comprising a
cluster, wherein each of the computing nodes comprises a
server and wherein
a first one of the computing nodes comprises an
incoming director module associated with a virtual address, the
incoming director module operable to receive all data signals
directed to the cluster via a first external network connection,
associate each of the received data signals with a selected
second one of the computing nodes and send the received data
signal to the selected second one of the computing nodes via a
request distribution channel; and
a response generator module operable to generate a
response data signal responsive to the received data signal;
wherein the second computing node comprises an
outgoing director module, the outgoing director module
operable rewrite the response data signal to include the virtual
address.
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9–12, and 16–18 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Dar (US 2004/0193677 A1,
pub. Sep. 30, 2004) and Anerousis (US Patent 6,760,775 B1, iss. Jul. 6,
2004). (Ans. 4–8.)
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 7, 8, 13–15, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Dar, Anerousis and Joy (US
7,613,822 B2, iss. Nov. 3, 2009). (Ans. 8–9.)

Appeal 2012-012372
Application 11/687,545

3
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant’s Appeal Brief raises the following issues:
2

First Issue: Whether Dar and Anerousis teach or suggest the
limitation of independent claim 1 that “each of the computing nodes
comprises a server,” together with “a first one of the computing nodes
comprises an incoming director module . . . operable to receive all data
signals.” (Appeal Br. 12–13.)
Second Issue: Whether Dar and Anerousis teach or suggest the
limitation of independent claim 1 of “a first one of the computing nodes
comprises an incoming director module associated with a virtual address.”
(Appeal Br. 13–14.)
Third Issue: Whether Dar and Anerousis teach or suggest the
limitation of independent claim 1 of “the second computing node . . .
operable [to] rewrite the response data signal to include the virtual address.”
(Appeal Br. 14–15.)
Fourth Issue: Whether Dar teaches away from the cited combination
of references. (Appeal Br. 15–16.)

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 27, 2012), Reply Brief (filed Sep. 12,
2012), and the Answer (mailed Jul. 18, 2012) for their respective details.
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
properly raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs, or which are made in a conclusory
fashion, are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(viii) (2011).
Appeal 2012-012372
Application 11/687,545

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3–9); and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 9–12), and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner.
First Issue
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Dar and Anerousis teaches or suggests “each of the
computing nodes comprises a server,” and “a first one of the computing
nodes comprises an incoming director module . . . operable to receive all
data signals,” as required by claim 1. (Ans. 4–6.) In particular, the
Examiner finds that the switch 12 of Dar satisfies the requirement that the
first computing node “comprises a server,” given that Dar states the
functions of the switch can be performed in servers. (Ans. 5; Dar ¶ 40.) In
addition, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Anerousis of a cluster of
computing nodes in which a first computing node is “operable to receive all
data signals” directed to the cluster. (Ans. 5–6; Anerousis Fig. 2, col. 7, ll.
54–67.)
Appellant argues that “the asserted ‘node’ of Anerousis is not a ‘node’
as defined in the claim because it does not comprise a server.” (Appeal Br.
12.) We do not find this argument persuasive, as it treats the references
separately rather than considering the combination as a whole. We agree
Appeal 2012-012372
Application 11/687,545

5
with the Examiner’s finding that “Anerousis need not comprise a server as
claimed since Dar [already teaches that] a first computing node 12 comprises
a server.” (Ans. 10.)
Second Issue
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Dar and Anerousis teaches or suggests “a first one of the
computing nodes comprises an incoming director module associated with a
virtual address,” as required by claim 1. (Ans. 5.) In particular, the
Examiner relies on the disclosure in Dar that the switch 12 receives
incoming communications from clients, which include the virtual address of
the server that is the destination of the communication. (Ans. 5; Dar ¶ 28.)
Appellant argues a virtual address is not “associated” with the switch
12, but rather the switch 12 “merely maps the virtual addresses of the
destination server . . . .” (App. Br. 13.) The Examiner finds , however,
broadly interprets “the phrase ‘associated with a virtual address,’” and given
that the switch stores a mapping of virtual addresses to actual addresses, it
satisfies this claim limitation. (Ans. 10–11.) We agree with the Examiner’s
finding. In addition to the fact that the switch maps the virtual address, Dar
states that the “virtual address [is] managed by the switch 12,” and “The
switch 12 is configured to communicate with the network 22 to advertise
virtual identifiers for corresponding services.” (Dar ¶¶ 26, 30.) Under the
broadest reasonable construction of the phrase, we agree that the switch 12 is
“associated with a virtual address.”
Third Issue
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Dar and Anerousis teaches or suggests “the second
Appeal 2012-012372
Application 11/687,545

6
computing node . . . operable [to] rewrite the response data signal to include
the virtual address,” as required by claim 1. (Ans. 4–5.) In particular, the
Examiner finds the server of Dar satisfies the requirement of a second
computing node, given that a response communication from the server
includes the virtual address. (Ans. 5; Dar ¶ 35.) Appellant argues this
disclosure is insufficient because the virtual address the Examiner relies on
is “not the virtual address of switch 12,” contrary to the requirement that
“the virtual address” specified in this claim element must be that same thing
as the virtual address that the first node (i.e., the switch) is associated with.
(Appeal Br. 15.)
However, as discussed above, applying the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “associated with,” the virtual server address translated by
the switch 12 of Dar satisfies that limitation. As the Examiner finds, in one
embodiment disclosed in Dar, the virtual address included in the response
communication sent from the server is the virtual address of that server,
which is the same address the Examiner correctly finds is “associated with”
the switch 12. (Ans. 12; Dar ¶ 40.)
Fourth Issue
Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion is erroneous
because Dar “teaches away” from a combination with Anerousis. (Appeal
Br. 15–16.) In particular, Appellant argues Dar teaches away from the
limitation that the first node be “operable to receive all data signals,” given
that Figure 6 of Dar discloses the advantage of direct communication
between the clients and server, bypassing the switch 12, which the Examiner
relies on for the first node of the claims. (Appeal Br. 16.)
Appeal 2012-012372
Application 11/687,545

7
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s argument is referring to one
of the embodiments disclosed in Dar, but an alternative embodiment
discloses “all communications will flow through the switch 12.” (Ans. 12;
Dar ¶ 40.) We agree with this analysis, and agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that Dar together with Anerousis teach or suggest the subject
matter of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of independent claims 9 and 16,
and dependent claims 2–3, 5, 6, 10–12, and 17–18, which rejection is not
argued separately with particularity. (Appeal Br. 16.) In addition, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4, 7, 8, 13–15, 19, and 20 over Dar,
Anerousis, and Joy, which rejection also is not argued separately with
particularity. (Appeal Br. 16.)

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

Ssc