Juniper Networks, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 26, 2021

2020001228 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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.
14/885,210 10/16/2015 Kireeti KOMPELLA Juniper-22-1CON4 2485
109043 7590 05/26/2021
Juniper
c/o Pokotylo Patent Services
621 Shrewsbury Avenue
Suite 226
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
SURVILLO, OLEG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
john@pokopat.com
stephanie@pokopat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIREETI KOMPELLA

Appeal 2020-001228
Application 14/885,210
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19 and 21 which constitute all of the
claims pending. Appeal Br. 2. Claim 20 has been canceled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Oct. 16, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed Aug. 16, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
June 17, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Oct. 02, 2019
(“Ans.”)Reply Brief, filed December 2, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Juniper
Networks, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001228
Application 14/885,210
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates a method
and system for fast liveness detection without making changes to packets
sent or received by any routing protocol between two devices. Spec. 12. In
particular, the claimed subject matter concerns detecting errors in
connections, protocols, and/or data plane components. Spec. 2. Figure 2,
reproduced below, is useful in understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 2 illustrates operations and information that may be used to monitor
protocols. APFL operations 240 may be a utility that may be used by one or
more protocol operations 260, interface forwarding liveness operations 270,
or both. APFL operations 240 use hello interval information 210, protocols,
Appeal 2020-001228
Application 14/885,210
3
interfaces, or both using aggregated liveness 230, (dead interval, neighbor
node) pair information 220, and APFL neighbor information 250 to
determine liveness of various peer protocols, forwarding liveness of
interfaces of various neighbor nodes, or both. Configuration operations 205
may be used to configure hello interval information 210, protocols,
interfaces, or both using aggregated liveness 230, and (dead interval,
neighbor node) pair information 220.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. For use with a system including a data forwarding node of a
data communications network and a neighbor data forwarding
node of the data communications network, a method comprising:
a) receiving, by the data forwarding node, status information
from a local routing protocol running on the data forwarding
node;
b) composing, using the data forwarding node, a message
including explicit status information about the local routing
protocol based on the received status information;
c) sending, using the data forwarding node, the message towards
the neighbor data forwarding node which runs a routing protocol
with which the local routing protocol of the data forwarding node
peers;
d) periodically repeating acts (a)-(c) in accordance with a send
time interval;
e) receiving, by the neighbor data forwarding node, the message;
and
f) making routing decisions, by the neighbor data forwarding
node, using the status information.

Appeal 2020-001228
Application 14/885,210
4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3
Name Reference Date
Nguyen US 7,120,688 B1 Oct. 10, 2006
Sandick Fast Liveness Protocol (FLIP)
Memo, Internet Draft, Feb.
2020
Feb. 2000
Applicant’s Admitted
Prior Art (AAPA)
Spec. ¶¶ 4-7; Fig. 1

IV. REJECTIONS4
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 7–11, 14, and 16–19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatenable over the combined teachings of Applicant’s
Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Nguyen. Final Act. 7.
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatenable over the combined teachings of AAPA,
Nguyen, and Sandick. Final Act. 10.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8–20.5 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 The Examiner withdrew earlier §101 and §112, 2nd paragraph rejections.
See Advisory Action, Dec. 20, 2018.
5 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appeal 2020-001228
Application 14/885,210
5
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act. 7–
10; Ans. 3–5. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Nguyen
teaches or suggests “a message . . . including explicit status information
about the routing protocol,” as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br.
10–11. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rationale for
modifying AAPA in view of Nguyen is insufficient and the applications in
Nguyen “have nothing to do with routing protocols.” Id. at 11, 13. Further,
Appellant argues that “the SPAs in Nguyen do not appear to concern routing
protocols to allow data forwarding devices such as routers ‘to make routing
decisions,’ which are used to forward data packets through a
communications network.” Id. at 13.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error
because Appellant is arguing the references separately. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner cites to Appellant’s own Specification as prior art, not
to Nguyen, for teaching or suggesting the disputed claim limitation “status
information from a local routing protocol” as this disputed limitation is
recited in limitation (a) of claim 1. See Final Act. 7, citing to Spec. at pars.
4–7, Fig. 1. The Examiner cites to Nguyen’s heartbeat message containing
status information about a single SPA (service package application), for
particularly teaching or suggesting a message including status information
Appeal 2020-001228
Application 14/885,210
6
recited in limitation (b) of claim 1. Final Act. 8, citing Nguyen, col. 5, ll. 9–
32.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments because we are of the
view that composing a message including the AAPA-known status
information about an AAPA-known local routing protocol would have
merely been a “predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). Further, we find the Examiner provided sufficient evidence of a
predictable result from combining the familiar elements of AAPA and
Nguyen, and Appellant has not provided any evidence of secondary
considerations, such as unexpected results. On this record, we find Appellant
has not shown that the invention as recited in claim 1 is anything “more than
the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions” so as to be non-obvious under the guidance of KSR at 417.
Appellant further argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have modified the AAPA Hello messages to include status information as
proposed by the Office “because doing so would reduce the efficiency of
such Hello message . . . without increasing their effectiveness.” Appeal Br.
14.
It is our view that the Examiner's proffered combination of the
respective cited features of AAPA and Nguyen would have realized a
predictable result--and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Nguyen’s messages to include such known
information. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007)
(“[A] combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Appeal 2020-001228
Application 14/885,210
7
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the
same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one
would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR,
550 U.S. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282
(1976)).
Further, in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, the Court stated that when
considering obviousness that “the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” When there is a design need or
market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason
to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. See id. at 421.
Furthermore, for a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, the
reference need not recognize the same problem solved by the Appellant. See
In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “[N]either the particular
motivation nor the avowed purpose of the [Appellant] controls” when
performing an obviousness analysis. KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (2007).
This reasoning is applicable here. In reviewing the record, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred because Appellant does not point to any
evidence of record that shows combining the teachings of AAPA and
Nguyen in the manner proffered by the Examiner (Final Act. 7–8) would
have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appeal 2020-001228
Application 14/885,210
8
Appellant has not identified knowledge gleaned only from the present
application that was not within the level of ordinary skill at the time the
claimed invention was made. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392 (CCPA
1971). Moreover, Appellant has not provided any objective indicia of
nonobviousness (e.g., unexpected results), which our reviewing court guides
“operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak
Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
The Examiner has articulated his reasoning for combining the prior art
teachings. See Final Act 8 (“to augment the transmitted message of AAPA
by including additional information, thus, facilitating exchange of data
between devices in a message”) and Ans. 4 (“it allows receiving[sic] status
information without making inferences based on unanswered sequence of
Hello messages whether neighbor device is up or down, thus, alleviating
uncertainties”). We find one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that a data communications message may be composed to
include explicit status information about the local routing protocol. Thus, we
find the Examiner set forth a sufficient rational underpinning explaining why
an artisan would have combined the teachings of AAPA and Nguyen. See
Final Act. 8, Ans. 4.
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Appellant contends AAPA does not
teach that a “dead interval is communicated from one data forwarding node
to its neighbor.” Appeal Br. 16–18. Appellant further argues Nguyen does
Appeal 2020-001228
Application 14/885,210
9
not teach “that a dead interval is communication from one data forwarding
node to its neighbor.” Appeal Br. 18.
The Examiner finds Nguyen’s status of “Out of Service,” set only
after three iterations of checking the last update time, teaches or at least
suggests the disputed “sending . . . a dead time interval towards the neighbor
data forwarding node.” Final Act. 8, citing Nguyen, col. 4, l. 65 – col. 5, l. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because we agree
with the Examiner that under a broad but reasonable interpretation,
Nguyen’s “out of service” status at least suggests a “dead time interval.” See
Nguyen, col. 4, l. 65 – col. 5, l. 2. Appellant does not point to the
Specification for a definition of this phrase that would be inconsistent with
the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation.
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 2.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Appellant similarly argues Nguyen’s
“out of office” status does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation “(A)
local routing protocol not reporting.” Appeal Br. 19.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because we agree
with the Examiner that under a broad but reasonable interpretation Nguyen’s
“out of service” status at least suggests “local routing protocol not
reporting.” See Nguyen, col. 4, l. 65 – col. 5, l. 2. Appellant does not point
to the Specification for a definition of this phrase that would contradict or be
inconsistent with the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation.
Appeal 2020-001228
Application 14/885,210
10
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 8.
Regarding the rejections of claims 3–7, 9–19, and 21, because Appellant
does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially
the same arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of
claim 1 above, claims 3–7, 9–19, and 21 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–19 and 21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 7–11,
14, 16–19 103 AAPA, Nguyen
1, 2, 5,
7–11,
14,
16–19

3, 4, 6, 12,
13, 15, 21 103
AAPA, Nguyen, and
Sandick
3, 4, 6,
12, 13,
15, 21

Overall
Outcome
1–19, 21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED