Ex Parte Dholakia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13231367 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

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.
13/231,367 09/13/2011 Mehul Harshad Dholakia BRCD-3026. l.US.NP 7147
73257 7590 03/30/2017
PVF — Brocade Communications Systems Inc.
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 Fifth Street
Davis, CA 95618
EXAMINER
CUNNINGHAM, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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):
sy_incoming @parklegal.com
j eannie @parklegal. com
wendy@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHUL HARSHAD DHOLAKIA and
WING-KEUNG ADAM YEUNG
Appeal 2016-006079
Application 13/231,367
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOVAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—24
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “constructing an efficient, scalable PIM-
BIDIR [(Protocol-Independent Multicast Bidirectional Mode)] forwarding
table by utilizing two lookup tables to facilitate a two-tier lookup structure”
in a network. Specification 5.
Appeal 2016-006079
Application 13/231,367
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A switching system, comprising:
a packet processor adapted to identify a multicast address
in a packet; and a storage device adapted to store:
a first table comprising a first entry which maps a
multicastaddress range and an ingress interface to a first logical
reference associated with a rendezvous point, wherein the first
table maps one or more ingress interfaces associated with a
rendezvous point to a same logical reference; and
a second table comprising a second entry which maps the
first logical reference and a multicast group address of the
multicast address range to one or more forwarding interfaces.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—4, 8—12, 16—20, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chawla (United States Patent Number
8,090,805 Bl; issued January 3, 2012) and Windisch (United States Patent
Application Publication Number 2006/0018253 Al; published January 26,
2006). Non-final Rejection. 2—5.
Claims 7, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chawla, Windisch, and Zwiebel (United States Patent
Application Publication Number 2011/0211578 Al; published September 1,
2011). Non-final Rejection 5—6.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chawla, Windisch, Zwiebel, and Tang
(United States Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0165140 Al;
published September 4, 2003). Non-final Rejection 6—7.
ANALYSIS
2
Appeal 2016-006079
Application 13/231,367
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 16, 2015), the Reply Brief
(filed May 25, 2016), the Answer (mailed March 25, 2016) and the Non-
final Rejection (mailed June 12, 2015) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Brief.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We 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 set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Independent claims E 9, and 17
Appellants contend, “[sjince the Examiner asserted in page 2 of the
Office Action that ‘the key or hash value is seen as the logical reference," the
SP entry in Lookup Table 1 of Chawla does not map ‘a first logical reference
associated with a rendezvous point.""" Appeal Brief 7 (citing Chawla column
11, lines 14—19). We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive because
the Examiner did not solely rely upon Chawla to disclose associating a
logical reference with a rendezvous point. See Non-final Rejection 3;
Answer 2; Chawla column 11, lines 29-45; Windish paragraphs 10, 48.
Appellants contend the Examiner’s findings that Chawla discloses
“a mask. . . used to create a prefix for the destination address, i.e. a range""
is erroneous because the mask the Examiner is referring to is a subnet mask.
Appeal Brief 8. Appellants argue that, “Chawla explicitly discloses “a (S, G,
C) mask, which in turn selects at least a portion of a source address, a
3
Appeal 2016-006079
Application 13/231,367
multicast group destination address, and an RPF interface ID ” and
“respectfully submits that ‘a (S, G, C) mask’ is not the same as a subnet
mask.” Appeal Brief 8 (we note Appellants provide an incomplete cite to
Chawla). We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the
arguments fail to provide an explanation as to why the Examiner’s findings
are erroneous as they pertain to the actual claimed limitations. Appellants
also argue that “since the key is based on a multicast destination address of a
specific multicast group, the key is specific to a multicast group” and,
therefore, “since a rendezvous point can represent a plurality of multicast
groups, the key is not the same as ‘as a first logical reference associated
with a rendezvous point. ’” Appeal Brief 8. We do not find Appellants’
arguments persuasive because the Examiner did not find Chawla disclosed a
first entry corresponding to a rendezvous point. See Non-final Rejection 2-
3.
Appellants further argue:
In pages 2-3 of the Office Action, Examiner stated that
Chawla discloses “a second table comprising a second entry
which maps the first logical reference and a multicast group
address of the multicast group address to one or more forwarding
interfaces [sic].” Appellant respectfully points out that the claim
limitation recites that “the second entry maps the first logical
reference and a multicast group address of the multicast address
range to one or more forwarding interfaces.'1'’ Appellant, thus,
respectfully submits that the Examiner has not complied with
MPEP 2143.03, which states “[all] words in a claim must be
considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the
prior art.”
Appeal Brief 9.
The Examiner did not specifically mention the “range” term after the
“multicast address” terminology. Such omission is merely a typographical
4
Appeal 2016-006079
Application 13/231,367
error that we consider harmless. See Answer 4. Accordingly, we do not find
Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the arguments fail to address the
actual merits of the rejection.
Appellants argue, “[i]f ‘the key or hash value is seen as the logical
reference,’’ as asserted by the Examiner, and the key is generated from the
multicast destination address, that key, in association with the multicast
destination address, is not included in ‘the second table.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellants further argue “that the lookup in the second lookup table of
Chawla is performed based only on the hash value” however, the ‘instant
application discloses “[mapping] the first logical reference and a multicast
group address of the multicast address range to one or more forwarding
interfaces.” Appeal Brief 9. The Examiner finds “the hash value or key
identifies a subset of entries in the second lookup table, which is exactly
what the logical reference does in the current application (see Fig. 3 of
application).” Answer 5. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive
because Chawla’s key or hash tag assignment to certain entities in the
second lookup table does not prevent Chawla from disclosing the claimed
second entry mapping. See Non-Final Rejection 3.
Appellants contend, “Windisch teaches an address range being
associated with a rendezvous pint, which is not the same as ‘ a first logical
reference associated with a rendezvous point.’ ” Appeal Brief 9—10. We do
not find Appellants’ argument persuasive because logical reference is a
broad term and Appellants have not presented any arguments addressing the
difference between Windisch’s disclosure and the claimed invention. See
Non-Final Rejection 9.
Appellants further contend:
5
Appeal 2016-006079
Application 13/231,367
Since Windisch merely discloses “[any] group falling within a
different prefix uses a different rendezvous point, ” Appellant
respectfully points out that different multicast groups are not the
same as different ingress ports of a switch. In addition, different
multicast groups being associated with different rendezvous
point is not the same as “[mapping] one or more ingress
interfaces associated with a rendezvous point to a same logical
reference.'’'’
Appeal Brief 10.
The Examiner finds and we agree:
Although Windisch suggests that a plurality of ingress can be
mapped to the same egress (the egress that reaches the
rendezvous point), Para [0010] and in general mapping multiple
inputs to a single output is not a novel concept. Chawla maps the
ingress interface, the multicast address range and first logical
reference, and Windisch maps the multicast address range to a
rendezvous point, therefore in view of both references all items
are associated with each other.
Answer 6.
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1,9, and 17 because we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to an artisan:
to incorporate the teachings of Windisch into the teachings of
Chawla because mapping of group ranges to a rendezvous point
is needed to ensure that the router knows the identity of the
rendezvous point for each multicast group of receivers that
desires to receive messages destined for a multicast group
address.[1]
1 “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
6
Appeal 2016-006079
Application 13/231,367
Non-Final Rejection 3.
Appellants also argue that the proposed modification or combination
of Chawla and Windisch would change the principle operation of the prior
art invention being modified. Appeal Brief 11. Appellants contend that the
“Examiner has failed to establish prima facie case of obviousness because
Examiner has attributed principles of operation to the Chawla cited art that
are not disclosed in Windisch.” Appeal Brief 11. Appellants further
contend “the combination of Chawla and Windisch at most teaches
generation of a key based on a RPF interface ID and a multicast group
destination address mapped to a rendezvous point address” and, therefore,
fails to teach “wherein the first table maps one or more ingress interfaces
associated with a rendezvous point to a same logical reference.” Appeal Br.
12. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because, as we stated
above, the analysis for obviousness does not have to be exact or precise “for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18
Appellants contend that Chawla discloses Table 302(2) is actually the
second lookup table and the Examiner erroneously finds that Table 302(2)
discloses the claimed “entry in lookup table one.” Appeal Brief 13. We do
not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Appellants did not
explain why Chawla’s reverse path forwarding (RPF) interface verification
fails to disclose “[looking] up the first entry in the first table based on the
ingress interface corresponding to the packet” in light of the fact that
Appellants employ the same identification technique. Appeal Brief 13, see
7
Appeal 2016-006079
Application 13/231,367
Specification paragraph 29.2 We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection dependent claims 2, 10, and 18.
Dependent claims 3,11, and 19
Appellants contend Chawla’s link-local zone corresponds to a local
area network that can include a plurality of interfaces in different devices.
Appeal Brief 14. Appellants further contend “[bjased on Examiner’s
assertion, Appellant respectfully notes that forwarding a packet to an
‘identified output interfaces that lie within the same link-local zone'' is not
the same as ‘[determining] whether a forwarding interface is the same as the
ingress interface.’” Appeal Brief 14. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 3,11, and 19 because Appellants fail to persuasively
explain why Examiner’s findings are erroneous.
Dependent claims 4—8, 12—16, and 20-24
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections for dependent
claims 4—8, 12—16, and 20-24 because although Appellants identify alleged
differences between the claims and the cited art, Appellants fail to provide
an explanation as to why the cited art is different.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—24 are sustained.
2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“The arguments shall explain why the
examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant”)
(emphasis added); see also In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art”).
8
Appeal 2016-006079
Application 13/231,367
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
9