Ex Parte Mudigonda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 29, 2016

12623428 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/623,428 11122/2009 Jayaram Mudigonda 56436 7590 03/31/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82259615 6333 EXAMINER TRAN, THINHD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAY ARAM MUD I GONDA, PAUL T. CONGDON, JOSE RENATO G. SANTOS, and PARTHASARATHY RANGANATHAN Appeal2014-005189 Application 12/623,428 1 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention relates to routing networking packets from a first virtual machine to a second virtual machine within a computing 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-005189 Application 12/623,428 device, using a first approach or a second approach based upon one or more considerations regarding a state of the computing device. Abstract. Of the claims on appeal, claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A computing device comprising: a first virtual machine and a second virtual machine, where a networking packet is to be sent from the first virtual machine to the second virtual machine; and a hardware network interface controller (NIC) to dynamically determine, at a time when the networking packet is to be routed from the first virtual machine to the second virtual machine within the computing device, whether the networking packet is to be routed from the first virtual machine to the second virtual machine within the computing device in accordance with a first approach or a second approach, based upon one or more considerations regarding a current state of the computing device, wherein the hardware NIC is then to control routing of the networking packet in accordance with the first approach or the second approach. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu (US 2011/0004877 Al; pub. Jan. 6, 2011) and Cummings et al. (US 2008/0123676 Al; pub. May 29, 2008) (hereinafter "Cummings"), collectively referred to as the "first combination." (2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Cummings, and Neystadt et al. (US 2010/0325727 Al; pub. Dec. 23, 2010) (hereinafter "N eystadt"). 2 Appeal2014-005189 Application 12/623,428 (3) The Examiner rejected claims 4, 7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Cummings, and Regnier (US 2006/0277357 Al; pub. Dec. 7, 2006) (hereinafter "Regnier"). (4) The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Cummings, and Vandegrift et al. (US 2009/0241109 Al; pub. Sept. 24, 2009) (hereinafter "Vandegrift"). (5) The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Cummings, and Huang et al. (US 2011/0072426 Al; pub. Mar. 24, 2011) (hereinafter "Huang"). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our Decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the March 7, 2013 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-13) and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-8). We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. We, however, highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. (1) Approaches within the computing device Appellants argue the first combination, and Wu in particular, fails to teach or suggest routing a networking packet within the computing device in accordance with a first or a second approach, as is required by claim 1. See 3 Appeal2014-005189 Application 12/623,428 App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, the first combination, and Wu in particular, teaches only one approach for routing packets from the first virtual machine to the second virtual machine - these virtual machines are both within the same device - and not two approaches, as required by the claims. See App. Br. 5-6. Appellants argue Wu's one approach for internally routing packets between two virtual machines is to use an intra- module network traffic tap for each machine, which allows network traffic to be routed between them. See App. Br. 5-6 (quoting Wu i-f 25) ("'For example, virtual machine 130A includes an intra-module network traffic tap 125E,' which 'enables virtual machine 130A ... to export network traffic' for access by 'other hosted virtual machines 130. "');see also App. Br. 5 (citing Wu i-fi-122, 25). Furthermore, Appellants argue Wu's teaching of external network traffic being routed to and from the computing device via external network traffic taps is not relevant to the claims, which relate to internal traffic routing. See App. Br. 5---6 (citing Wu Fig. 1, i-fi-120, 21) (citing network taps 125A and 125D). Similarly, Appellants argue Wu's teaching of rules for routing traffic relates only to these external network traffic taps and external network traffic - not to approaches for routing internal network traffic from one virtual machine to another virtual machine within the computing device. See App. Br. 6 (citing Wu i-fi-131, 33, 34, 36); Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds the first combination, and Wu in particular, teaches or suggests routing a networking packet in accordance with the claims. See Ans. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds Wu teaches virtual machines within a computing device can send and receive packets from each other using a virtual data machine interface. See Ans. 4 (citing Wu i-fi-1 20, 4 Appeal2014-005189 Application 12/623,428 27) ("The virtual machine data interface 120 directs the traffic between the virtual machines 130A, 130B, and 130C within the device 105"). The Examiner further finds hyperswitches within the virtual machine data interface route this network traffic, including from one virtual machine to another. See Ans. 6 (citing Wu i-f 27); see also Final Act. 3--4 (citing Wu Fig. 4, i-fi-114, 25, 27, 28, 32, 43, 54, 55) ("[T]he hyperswitches interface included in the virtual machine data interface dynamically applies one or more of the rules (redirect rules, copy rule) to pass for each packet between the virtual machines.") (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds these hyperswitches apply rules, such as redirect and copy rules, for transferring the networking packets. See Ans. 5 (citing Wu i-fi-132, 43, Fig. 2). In addition, the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would consider an "approach," as used in the claims, "as a way to transfer the packet." See Ans. 5. The Examiner, thus, concludes that each of the rules, such as redirect and copy, is an approach, and because there are multiple rules, Wu discloses a first approach and a second approach. See Ans. 5 (citing Wu i-fi-1 32, 43, Fig. 2). We agree with the Examiner's findings and we find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. Appellants' arguments cite Wu's intra-module network taps, but do not address the virtual machine data interface, and the hyperswitches contained therein, that effectuate communications between virtual machines within the computing device. See, e.g., Wu Fig. 1, i-fi-1 20, 27 ("[T]he virtual machine data interface 120 can direct network traffic from each hosted virtual machine to one or more other hosted virtual machines .... "), 28 ("[N]etwork device 105 can include one or more software-implemented hyperswitches within the virtual machine data 5 Appeal2014-005189 Application 12/623,428 interface 120 to specify the data transfer topology between the one or more connected networks, such as LAN s and/ or WAN s, network traffic processing module, and one or more hosted virtual machines."). These hyperswitches process received network traffic according to rules, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation are approaches. See Wu i-fi-1 32- 34. Furthermore, we disagree with Appellants that Wu's teaching of rules for routing traffic relates only to external network traffic. For example, Wu teaches hyperswitches can be used to route packets between virtual machines within a computing device and that hyperswitches can use rules to facilitate routing packets. See Wu i-fi-f 14, 27, 28; see also Wu i-fi-149, 55 ("Virtual machine 410 includes a virtual network interface 415 adapted to send and receive network traffic from ... other hosted virtual machines according to a data transfer topology specified by hyperswitch interfaces included in the virtual machine data interface 405."). Moreover, the cited portions of Wu do not state that hyperswitches or rules for routing packets are limited to external network traffic only. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-21 (2007)) ("A reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose."). (2) Network traffic is to be routed Appellants focus on the "to be routed" claim language and argue claim 1 requires already knowing the destination of the networking packet (i.e., the second virtual machine) when selecting a first approach or a second approach to route the packet from the first to the second virtual machine. See App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, Wu instead teaches (i) a 6 Appeal2014-005189 Application 12/623,428 hyperswitch implements a redirect, copy, pass, and/or drop rule to determine the destination of a networking packet (e.g., whether network packet is to be routed to a particular virtual machine, to all virtual machines, or to no virtual machines of the computing device) and (ii) once the destination is determined, Wu does not teach or suggest multiple approaches for routing a packet between virtual machines within the computing device. See App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3 ("The claimed approaches are not for determining the destination of a networking packet; the destination of the networking packet is explicitly stated as being the second virtual machine."). The Examiner finds that already knowing the destination of the networking packet is not a claim requirement. See Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner and find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, including the phrase "to be routed," does not require knowing the destination of the packet. Claim 1 simply requires a packet is to be routed from a first to a second virtual machine - the destination of the packet is not addressed. For example, a packet can be routed from a first virtual machine to a second virtual machine irrespective of the packet's destination. See, e.g., Wu i-fi-132-35. In addition, we further note claim 1 recites "dynamically determin[ing], at a time when the networking packet is to be routed from the first virtual machine to the second virtual machine ... , whether the networking packet is to be routed ... in accordance with a first approach or a second approach .... " App. Br. 10 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the language includes selecting an approach when the destination is determined, rather than already knowing the destination. 7 Appeal2014-005189 Application 12/623,428 CONCLUSION Based on the above findings and reasoning, which applies to claims 9 and 15, as well as claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, and 15. Our reasoning and findings above also apply to the Examiner's rejections of the remaining claims on appeal- claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, and 14; claims 4, 7, and 12; claims 5 and 13; and claim 6- for which Appellants did not provide additional arguments. Accordingly, we also sustain these rejections. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15. 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 8