Genband US LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 6, 2021

2020002217 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2021)

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. 15/331,661 10/21/2016 Paul Miller 47856.134US01 1447 106874 7590 10/06/2021 Haynes and Boone, LLP (47856) 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER FAN, JOHN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/06/2021 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): ipdocketing@haynesboone.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PAUL MILLER ____________ Appeal 2020-002217 Application 15/331,661 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ribbon Communication Operating Company, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002217 Application 15/331,661 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to a data center configured to run a virtual network function (VNF) in a cloud computing environment, where access network traffic and core network traffic are transmitted over different physical network interfaces of a physical machine and traverse different physical cables. Spec. ¶ 19. By physically segregating the access network traffic and the core network traffic, the network is less vulnerable to attacks than in a typical VNF residing in a cloud environment, where data traffic for both networks traverses the same physical cables. Id. ¶¶ 18–19. Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 1. A method comprising: with a Virtual Network Function (VNF) component associated with a VNF, communicating with an access network over a first physical network connected to a first physical network interface of a physical machine executing associated with the VNF component, the physical machine being in a datacenter; and with the VNF component, communicating with a core network over a second physical network connected to a second physical network interface of the physical machine, the second network being isolated from the first network such that access network traffic and core network traffic traverse different physical network cables in the datacenter. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-002217 Application 15/331,661 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bruun2 and Jin.3 Final Act. 4–14. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bruun, Jin, and Nikaein.4 Final Act. 15. The Examiner rejects claims 12, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bruun, Jin, and Parikh.5 Final Act. 15–17. OPINION Appellant argues that the combination of Bruun and Jin fails to teach or suggest that “access network traffic and core network traffic traverse different physical network cables in the datacenter,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 18. Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–5. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner does not show how the cited combination teaches or suggests this limitation as “neither Bruun nor Jin discloses the concept of isolating core network traffic from access network traffic” (Appeal Br. 10) or “how access 2 Bruun, US 2017/0230257 A1 (pub. Aug. 10, 2017). 3 Jin et al., US 2016/0330077 A1 (pub. Nov. 10, 2016). 4 Nikaein et al., Network Store: Exploring Slicing in Future 5G Networks, MobiArch ’15: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture (Sept. 2015). 5 Parikh et al., US 2016/0057209 A1 (pub. Feb. 25, 2016). Appeal 2020-002217 Application 15/331,661 4 network traffic and core network traffic traverse physical network cables” (Reply Br. 2).6 We agree with Appellant. The Examiner relies on Jin as disclosing the claimed “access network traffic and core network traffic travers[ing] different physical network cables in the datacenter.” Final Act. 5 (citing Jin Abstr., ¶¶ 37, 67, 100, 111); Ans. 5–7 (citing Jin Abstr., Figs. 1A, 1C, 6, ¶¶ 45, 67, 100, 111). Jin describes creating user-specific virtual networks within physical wireless networks. Jin Abstr.; see id. ¶ 111. The portions of Jin cited by the Examiner describe, for example, base stations facilitating access to a core network (id. ¶ 37), which may serve as a gateway for wireless transmit/receive units (e.g., cell phones) to access a public switched telephone network, the Internet, and/or other networks (id. ¶ 45). Jin also discloses separating the control plane, which makes decisions about where traffic is sent from the underlying system, from the data forwarding plane, which forwards traffic to the selected destination. Id. ¶ 67. However, as Appellant points out, the cited portions of Jin do not teach or suggest isolating access network traffic from core network traffic such that they traverse different physical network cables. See Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1–20. 6 Appellant also argues, for the first time in the Reply Brief, that “[t]he Examiner does not explain how Bruun would be modified with the teachings of Jin” and “gives minimal explanation as to any motivation to combine” the references. Reply Br. 5–6. These arguments were not timely raised in the Appeal Brief and are therefore waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(a)(2). Appeal 2020-002217 Application 15/331,661 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: REVERSED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6–11, 13–16, 18, 19 103 Bruun, Jin 1–4, 6–11, 13–16, 18, 19 5 103 Bruun, Jin, Nikaein 5 12, 17, 20 103 Bruun, Jin, Parikh 12, 17, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20