Ex Parte Schlansker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

13143162 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/143,162 07 /01/2011 Michael S. Schlansker
56436 7590 05/02/2016
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.
82744692 2736
EXAMINER
KELLER, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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 MICHAEL SCHLANSKER, PRA VEEN Y ALAGANDULA, and
ALANH.KARP
Appeal2014-007817
Application 13/143,162
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and AARON W. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SivIITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-007817
Application 13/143,162
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1--4 and 7-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A computer network comprising:
a first switch; and
a neighboring switch;
wherein said first switch floods said computer network as a result
of a forwarding table miss, said neighboring switch acting as a barrier
to prevent said flood from propagating into unrelated areas of said
computer network;
in which said first switch and said neighboring switch use different
unique hash functions to calculate hashed addresses for forwarding
table entries such that likelihood of said first switch and said
neighboring switch having an identical forwarding table conflict is
reduced; and
in which said first and neighboring switches use a unique local
constant as a variable in the hash function to calculate hashed
addresses.
2
Appeal 2014-007817
Application 13/143,162
Rune
Bronstein
Huang
Yano
Oelgaard
Jarvis
Chao
Prior Art
US 2001/0005368 Al
US 6,735,670 Bl
US 2004/0100957 Al
US 2008/0037544 Al
US 2008/0049612 Al
US 7,414,979 Bl
US 2010/0265824 Al
Examiner's Rejections
June 28, 2001
May 11, 2004
May 27, 2004
Feb. 14,2008
Feb.28,2008
Aug. 19, 2008
Oct. 21, 2010
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Oelgaard, Jarvis, and Yano.
Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oelgaard, Jarvis, Yano, and Huang.
Claims 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oelgaard, Jarvis, Yano, Huang, and Bronstein.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Oelgaard, Jarvis, Yano, and Chao.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bronstein, Yano, and Jarvis.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bronstein, Yano, Jarvis, and Rune.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bronstein, Yano, Jarvis, Rune, and Huang.
Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bronstein, Huang, Chao, Yano, and Jarvis.
3
Appeal 2014-007817
Application 13/143,162
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We agree with the Examiner's
response to the issues raised by Appellants in the Appeal Brief for the
reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following
additional issues raised in the Reply Brief for completeness.
Appellants contend paragraph 63 of Oelgaard does not teach a
"neighboring switch acting as a barrier to prevent said flood from
propagating into unrelated areas of said computer network" as recited in
claim 1. Reply Br. 5---6. The Examiner finds paragraph 63 of Oelgaard,
which discusses "unnecessary traffic relating to sending the destination
information [from switch 204] to other switches (e.g., switch 206) within the
switch stack may be avoided," teaches switch 204 acting as a barrier by
preventing destination information or floods from propagating into unrelated
areas. Ans. 2-3. Appellants' quote of paragraph 63 of Oelgaard on pages
5---6 of the Reply Brief, and the subsequent analysis of paragraph 63 on page
6, excludes this relevant portion of paragraph 63. Appellants have not
presented persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish the claimed
"switch acting as a barrier to prevent said flood from propagating" from a
switch only sending destination information to one other switch to avoid
unnecessary traffic as taught by Oelgaard.
Appellants contend paragraph 48 of Oelgaard teaches flooding the
frame. Reply Br. 6. However, this contention still does not address the
Examiner's finding that paragraph 63 teaches switch 204 acting as a barrier.
Appellants contend Y ano does not teach the use of different unique
hash functions as recited in claim 1, because Y ano only teaches eight hash
4
Appeal 2014-007817
Application 13/143,162
setting values, which can be used again within the network. Reply Br. 6-7.
However, claim 1 recites "said first switch and said neighboring switch use
different unique hash functions." Thus, the claimed "hash functions" are
unique for a first switch and a neighboring switch, not for every switch in
the network. Paragraph 123 ofYano teaches "different computational
expressions (hash setting values) are used in each of three switch devices"
and paragraph 125 teaches "the computational expression (hash setting
value) in the preceding stage switch devices can be made to differ from"
those in "subsequent stage switch devices." Appellants have not
persuasively distinguished the different hash setting values for the different
switches taught by Y ano from the claimed "first switch and said neighboring
switch use different unique hash functions" as recited in claim 1.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2--4, 7, and 8,
which fall with claim 1. Appellants present arguments for the patentability
of claims 9-14 (Reply Br. 15-20) similar to those presented for claim 1
which we find unpersuasive.
DECISION
We sustain the rejections of claims 1--4 and 7-14 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5
Appeal 2014-007817
Application 13/143,162
6