Ex Parte Kollu et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14517812 - (D) (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. § 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. § 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. § 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. § 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
-""""""""""'"'"··,-"""""""""""""'""---~-----' ____'-____ -, -==i
J Other Stora.g .. e .. --.... j ···················, ,4_ (18) !
;i: ~<.J O~~er Stora~~ 11
t t~S) i , i {20)
~ l '\ l...-------------' ; ___ .} \ I,-- \t:______ E]-·
:· .. ·········~c;e.----·····-~./ / . 01he~;]~rage J :sw,tch · / ---------------
/ i (44) , / 1
__ .,L.,------------------···-·
I ------- ·. ,.' . . e.gacy.' Server {12) r,, .. X \... r-··-------- -- / \ , ,'!Ii Storage (24) '-----~.-~---------------·
------------------------------------------------------~----·----------------------,--------------------
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
.---·~ 5 ~i-O;f\ .. ··_,..,., 5-30f3
-f ;'_!~:i:_;_ DEVICES
~; ·_rj:\f~.: 1(})
~ .,,,.-·u :530L~ ,l
~ I J.. l , ,. :- I! ....
I : ~.>~)5D: r·~:i0f.".:Yff;::::r·1 i,,l/
L 1,,,.· .. _:.r_F_~_: __ ·_1 .. r ... •... -~~:u~~i~ ~-~ .... •.:1',,. . -. . L ........ C,,> __ t:~~-~'-·. c:J .... !
,,,,..~· ·:..: .. ;;(: .... ~.
j 5'l5C f~f54iif-J\§l:@l_l
I··-·-·-···--·- ·--··----[~~~·: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. § 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. § 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. § 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. § 103.
DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13