Ex Parte Kollu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2019

14517812 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/517,812 10/18/2014 157376 7590 04/01/2019 Xsensus/Broadcom 200 Daingerfield Road, Suite 201 Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Badrinath Kollu 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12174US01 9829 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, ELTON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2019 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): Faith.Baggett@Xsensus.com Arlene.Hudgens@Xsensus.com anaquadocketing@xsensus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BADRINATH KOLLU and SATHISH GNANASEKARAN Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-15, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). WeAFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Brocade Communications Systems LLC. App. Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed December 29, 2017; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 11, 2018; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed March 22, 2018; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed September 29, 2017; and original Specification ("Spec."), filed October 18, 2014. Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to a switch designated as a switch type of a plurality of switch types, and a method for configuring such a switch. Spec. ,r,r 5, 24--26. According to Appellants, a switch may be configured as a server switch, a storage switch, or a core switch "based on connected node devices or node devices to be connected to the switch," such that a "server switch sees local devices and devices on all storage switches while a storage switch sees local devices and only servers zoned with local devices." Spec. ,r,r 5, 30, 33. Name server entries of a server switch only include locally attached devices, and the switch's routing table includes only entries for zoned-in target devices; meanwhile, name server entries of a storage switch only include entries for locally attached target devices, however, the switch's routing table includes entries for all network domains that include server switches. Spec. ,r 30. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A switch comprising: a processor; random access memory coupled to said processor; program storage coupled to said processor; at least one management port coupled to said processor; at least two data transfer ports coupled to said processor, at least one data transfer port for connecting to a node device and at least one data transfer port for connecting to another switch, wherein the node device is one of a server or a storage device, wherein the data transfer is between a server and a storage device, and 2 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 wherein the other switch is for coupling to a node device that is the other of a storage device or a server, so that data transfer is between the node device connected to the switch and the node device coupled to the other switch; and a data transfer switching element coupled to said at least two data transfer ports and said processor, said switching element including a routing table to specify an output port for received data transfer packets to proceed along a route to a destination, wherein said program storage includes a program which, when executed by said processor, causes said processor to perform the following method: receiving a designation of the switch as one switch type of a plurality of switch types based on node devices connected or to be connected to the switch; developing name server entries for only node devices connected to the switch; and developing routes for said routing table based on the designated switch type of the plurality of switch types and only between servers and storage devices as a default condition. App. Br. 30-34 (Claims App.). Evidence Considered Lounsberry US 8,355,344 Bl Jan. 15,2013 Pathak et al. ("Pathak") US 2004/0022254 Al Feb. 5,2004 Lin et al. ("Lin") US 2015/0120779 Al Apr. 30, 2015 Ramkumar et al. ("Ramkumar") US 2007 /0038679 Al Feb. 15,2007 3 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 Examiner's Rejections (1) Claims 1--4, 6-9, and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lounsberry, Pathak, and Lin. Final Act. 6-11. (2) Claims 5, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lounsberry, Pathak, Lin, and Ramkumar. Final Act. 11-13. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Lounsberry' s network, shown in Figure 1, includes switches (a server switch 36 connected to servers, and a storage switch 3 8 connected to storage) with data transfer ports, each switch receiving a designation as one switch type of a plurality of switch types based on node devices connected or to be connected to the switch, as claimed. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Lounsberry 3:5-8, 26-30, 43---63, Fig. 1). Lounsberry's Figure 1 is reproduced below. 4 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 -""""""""""'"'"Â·Â·,-"""""""""""""'""---~-----' ____'-____ -, -==i J Other Stora.g .. e .. --.... j Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·, ,4_ (18) ! ;i: ~<.J O~~er Stora~~ 11 t t~S) i , i {20) ~ l '\ l...-------------' ; ___ .} \ I,-- \t:______ E]-Â· :Â· .. Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·~c;e.----Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·-~./ / . 01he~;]~rage J :sw,tch Â· / --------------- / i (44) , / 1 __ .,L.,------------------Â·Â·Â·-Â· I ------- Â·. ,.' . . e.gacy.' Server {12) r,, .. X \... r-Â·Â·-------- -- / \ , ,'!Ii Storage (24) '-----~.-~---------------Â· ------------------------------------------------------~----Â·----------------------,-------------------- Figure 1 Lounsberry's Figure 1 shows a data center 10 including functional elements (servers, other storage, legacy storage, and disk storage), interconnecting switches ( server switch 3 6, other switch 3 8, legacy switch 40, and disk switch 42), and core switches (44 and 46). Lounsberry 3:43-54. To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on: (1) Pathak for teaching the claimed "developing name server entries for only 5 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 node devices connected to the switch"; and (2) Lin for teaching the claimed switch including a processor, random access memory, program storage, and data transfer switching element including a routing table with "routes [ developed] for said routing table based on the designated switch type of the plurality of switch types and only between servers and storage devices as a default condition," as claimed. Ans. 11-12 (citing Lin ,r,r 51, 54, 55, 57, 60, Fig. 5); Final Act. 7-9 ( citing Pathak ,r 34; Lin ,r,r 50-53). Particularly, the Examiner finds Lin's switch 510, shown in Figure 5, has a routing table that "prevents communications between storage stacks 530A-530D connected to the storage network switch 510, but allows communications between the storage stacks 530A-530D and storage host devices 520A-520B." Ans. 11 ( citing Lin ,r 57). Lin's Figure 5 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. 6 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 ~)I:J:Z \?T:J{~.;"-1 "\ ' :,,,.,,, ........... , ... .., ............ , .................. ,'\.;, ,.,..,,~ ................................ 'i ~~ ................. ~ ..................... ....... l ; I $~208 "f'-,.._.._,J..., l .J l l t l :'..)C4 :~ ~ : POR~_:m~~~T'~J~~~i~~\RE ' I ~ i .---Â·~ 5 ~i-O;f\ .. Â·Â·_,..,., 5-30f3 -f ;'_!~:i:_;_ DEVICES ~; Â·_rj:\f~.: 1(}) ~ .,,,.-Â·u :530L~ ,l ~ I J.. l , ,. :- I! .... I : ~.>~)5D: rÂ·~:i0f.".:Yff;::::rÂ·1 i,,l/ L 1,,,.Â· .. _:.r_F_~_: __ Â·_1 .. r ... â€¢... -~~:u~~i~ ~-~ .... â€¢.:1',,. . -. . L ........ C,,> __ t:~~-~'-Â·. c:J .... ! ,,,,..~Â· Â·:..: .. ;;(: .... ~. j 5'l5C f~f54iif-J\Â§l:@l_l IÂ·Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·Â·Â·--Â·- Â·--Â·Â·----[~~~Â·:l~il~]J~I:::i __ Fl(;. 5 Lin's Figure 5 shows a storage system 500 including storage stacks 530A- 530D and storage host devices (servers) 520A-520B interconnected by a storage network switch 510. Lin ,r,r 19, 48-51. The switch 510 includes ports 512A-512F, memory 516 storing a routing table 518, and firmware 514 for recognizing port connections and transferring messages between ports. Lin ,r,r 53-57. Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Lounsberry and Lin. In particular, Appellants argue "Lounsberry never teaches that the switch type designation [ of the switch as one switch type of a plurality of switch types] is ever provided to the switch itself' as claim 1 7 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 requires. App. Br. 17. Appellants argue Lounsberry merely configures "the number of cards per switch and the number of ports on each card ... based on the physical hardware available and the bandwidth requirements of the servers" but "[t]he switches in Lounsberry never know if they are core switches, server switches, etc. and then never base their operation on that designation." App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 6. In contrast, Appellants argue "[Appellants'] specification clearly teaches ... that the switch operates differently based on the designated switch type (routing tables are built differently for server switches and storage switches)." App. Br. 18. Appellants additionally argue "Lin cannot teach [the claimed] 'developing routes for a routing table based on the designated switch type of the plurality of switch types,' as there is only one switch type, not a plurality of switch types." App. Br. 25; Reply Br. 11. Appellants further argue Lin does not teach "developing routes ... only between servers and storage devices as a default condition"; rather, "Lin teaches ... the storage switch always allows communication between the host devices [(servers)]." App. Br. 25, 27 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 11-12. Appellants assert Lounsberry does not teach the claimed hardware elements of a switch, and although "Lin does show the claimed switch elements ... [the Answer] is the first mention of Lin with respect to the switch hardware elements." App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 9-10. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2-15. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. At the outset, we note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 8 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellants' Specification does not define the claimed terms switch type or plurality of switch types, but merely provides "[the] plurality of switch types include server and storage" and "further include core." See Spec. 13 (original claims 2 and 3). Aside from the original claims, Appellants' Specification mentions switch types only once more in the title, and elsewhere discusses non-limiting examples of designating switches. See Spec. ,r 39 ("designating the switches as server, storage or core switches"). Based on Appellants' Specification, the Examiner has broadly interpreted the claimed "switch type" as encompassing Lounsberry's and Lin's designated "[switch] position ... in the network" and "[switch] functions based on its location and capabilities in the system." Ans. 3, 8. The Examiner has also broadly interpreted the claimed "receiving a designation of the switch as one switch type" as encompassing Lounsberry's and Lin's "act of configuring a switch to have given functions based on its location and capabilities in the system." Ans. 8. We find the Examiner's interpretation reasonable and consistent with Appellants' Specification. Lounsberry' s design of a switch configuration provides a designation of one switch type (server switch, core switch, or disk switch, see Fig. 1) "based on node devices ... to be connected to the switch" as recited in claim 1. For example, Lounsberry provides a server switch 9 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 designation to a switch based on a number of servers to be connected to the switch, the bandwidth of the servers' ports, and the servers' operational requirements (such as latency, bandwidth, and throughput). See Lounsberry 4:22-24, 8:29--40. Lounsberry further provides a disk switch designation to another switch "based upon the requirements of the first disk storage 30, the second disk storage 32, and the third disk storage 34 or the first core switch 44 and the second core switch 46." Lounsberry 4:55-59. Lin, too, provides a storage network switch designation to a switch based on a requirement to interconnect storage stacks in a Serial Attached SCSI ("SAS") domain while enforcing stack isolation by preventing communications between the storage stacks. See Lin ,r,r 13, 50-59. Thus, Lin also teaches receiving a designation of the switch as one switch type "based on node devices connected or to be connected to the switch" as recited in claim 1. Lin further teaches that "receiving a designation" is performed by a program executed in the switch's processor (firmware 514), as required by claim 1. See Lin Fig. 5 and ,r 54 ("The functionalities of the storage network switch 510 can be realized, for example, by executing instructions stored in a firmware 514 of the storage network switch 510."). We additionally note Appellants' arguments regarding the claimed switch designation are not commensurate with claim 1. Appellants argue "[t]he switches in Lounsberry never know if they are core switches, server switches, etc." App. Br. 14. Claim 1, however, does not specify details of the switch types, and does not require the switch to know that it is a core switch or a server switch. Appellants also argue "operations of the switch [ described in the Specification] are different for different switch types" as "routing tables are built differently for server switches and storage 10 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 switches." App. Br. 17-18. Claim 1, however, does not recite different switch operations, or different routing tables for server switches and storage switches. Rather, claim 1 merely requires one switch having one designated type and one routing table based on the designation. The broad language of claim 1 allows a reading of Appellants' claimed switch designation on Lounsberry and Lin, as discussed supra. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Lin does not teach "'developing routes for a routing table based on the designated switch type of the plurality of switch types,' as there is only one switch type [ in Lin], not a plurality of switch types." App. Br. 25. Claim 1 requires developing routes for one switch routing table based on one switch type, not based on a plurality of switch types. As recognized by the Examiner, Lin teaches this claim limitation for its switch type ( a storage network switch type designed to interconnect storage stacks in a SAS domain). Ans. 11, 14-- 15; see Lin ,r,r 14 ("memory [ of the storage network switch] is configured to store a routing table, which contains network routes to mass storage devices of the storage stacks [of the SAS domain]"), 59 ("the [switch's] recognition module 562 can be further configured to receive ... network routes to mass storage devices 550 ... [and] to store the network routes into the routing table 518"). Appellants further argue Lin does not teach developing routes only between servers and storage devices as a default condition because "Lin teaches ... the storage switch always allows communication between the host devices [(servers)]." App. Br. 25 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded, as we do not find Appellants' asserted teaching in Lin. Although Lin's servers communicate with each other for synchronization purposes, 11 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 Lin does not require inter-server communication to be through the switch. Rather, Lin teaches inter-server communication is through a cluster access adapter 312, which "can be implemented" as one piece with a switch- connected storage adapter 314. See Lin ,r,r 32, 36, Fig. 3. We consider an artisan skilled in network routing technology at the time of Appellants' invention would recognize-from Lin's Figure 5 and Lin's optional teaching ("can be implemented" in paragraph 36}-that the inter-server adapter (312) may also be separate from the switch-connected storage adapter. Thus, Lin teaches and suggests that inter-server communication can occur through an adapter, but not connected to the switch 510. See Lin Fig. 5; KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007) (the predictable use of prior art elements according to known methods for their established functions is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results). As to Appellants' argument that Lounsberry does not teach the claimed switch hardware elements, we note Lin teaches the hardware elements (as recognized by Appellants). See Reply Br. 10 ("Appellant acknowledges that Lin does show the claimed switch elements"); see also Lin Fig. 5. Appellants argue, however, "[the Answer] is the first mention of Lin with respect to the switch hardware elements." Reply Br. 10. To the extent that the Examiner's Answer contains a new ground of rejection, Appellants should have filed a petition under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.181 within two months from the mailing of the Examiner's Answer requesting that the ground of rejection set forth in the Answer be designated as a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.40(a). Any allegation that an Examiner's Answer contains a new ground of rejection not identified as such is waived if not timely raised by way of a petition (i.e., by filing a petition within two 12 Appeal2018-005665 Application 14/517,812 months of the Answer). 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.181 ( f); see also Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1078 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). For these reasons, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, and similarly, independent claims 6 and 11 for which Appellants provide the same arguments, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 argued for their dependency. App. Br. 8, 28-29. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. DECISION As such, we affirm the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 13