NICIRA, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 11, 2020

2019003102 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2020)

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.
15/050,477 02/23/2016 Donghai HAN N225.01 9748
109858 7590 08/11/2020
ADELI LLP
11859 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 408
Los Angeles, CA 90025
EXAMINER
TURCHEN, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2020 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):
ipadmin@vmware.com
mail@adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DONGHAI HAN

Appeal 2019-003102
Application 15/050,477
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nicira, Inc.,
which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of VMware, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003102
Application 15/050,477

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This appeal is related to appeal number 2019-002910 (application
number 15/050,478).2
Claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, and 16–18 stand finally rejected by the
Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Bhagwat et al. (US
2015/0082417 A1, published Mar. 19, 2015). Final Act. 2.3
There are three independent claims 1 on appeal, claims 1, 7, and 13.
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Claim 7 is directed to non-transitory
computer-readable storage medium that includes a set of instructions for
carrying out a method with substantially the same steps as in claim 1. Claim
13 is directed to a host configured to implement a firewall comprising a
computer-readable storage medium that includes a set of instructions for

2 Appellant failed to identify this appeal as being related to the Appeal in
2019-002910. See Appeal Br. 2. The two applications are based on the same
disclosures by the same inventor. The rejected claims are similar. The
arguments, although directed to different prior art, are similar. The patent
practitioner filing the appeals is the same. The real parties in interest are the
same. And the Notice of Appeal and Appeal Brief filings in both
applications fall within the same three-month period. Appellant and
Appellant’s counsel are reminded of the duty to identify
all other prior . . . appeals . . . which satisfy all of the following
conditions: involve an application . . . owned by the appellant or
assignee, are known to appellant, the appellant’s legal
representative, or assignee, and may be related to, directly affect
. . . or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending
appeal.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii) (2018).
3 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1–18 as
anticipated by Bhagwat. Final Act. 2. In the Answer, the Examiner states
that the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 is withdrawn. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-003102
Application 15/050,477

3
carrying out a method with substantially the same steps as in claim 1. We
select claim 1 as representative. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for a destination host to implement a firewall in
a virtualized computing environment that includes the
destination host and a source host, the method comprising:
receiving, via a physical network interface controller
(PNIC) of the destination host, an ingress packet sent by the
source host, wherein the ingress packet is addressed to a
destination address, and a destination virtualized computing
instance supported by the destination host is associated with the
destination address and a destination virtual network interface
controller
(VNIC);
retrieving a PNIC-level firewall rule associated with the
destination virtualized computing instance, wherein the PNIC-
level firewall rule is applicable at the PNIC and generated based
on a VNIC-level firewall rule applicable at the destination VNIC,
and the VNIC-level firewall rule specifies a destination address
field that matches with the destination address of the ingress
packet; and
in response to determination that the PNIC-level firewall
rule blocks the ingress packet from passing through, dropping the
ingress packet such that the ingress packet is not sent to the
destination VNIC.

CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During patent examination proceedings, claim terms are given their
“broadest reasonable meaning . . . in their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant's specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The first step of the claim comprises receiving an ingress packet, “via
a physical network interface controller (PNIC),” from a source host which is
Appeal 2019-003102
Application 15/050,477

4
addressed to a destination address of a destination host. The destination
address is associated with “a destination virtualized computing instance” and
“a destination virtual network interface controller (VNIC).” The
Specification discloses an example of the “destination virtualized computing
instance” as a “virtual machine.” Spec. ¶ 16.
In the next step of the claim, a PNIC-level firewall rule associated
with the destination virtualized computing instance is received. The PNIC-
rule is required by the claim to be “applicable” at the PNIC. The PNIC-rule
is also required by the claim to be “generated based on a VNIC-level
firewall rule applicable at the destination VNIC.” The term “applicable,” as
explained in the Specification, indicates that the firewall rules “are
applicable to packets detected at or received via a particular” virtual
machine’s VNIC or PNIC to determine whether to allow or drop a particular
packet. Spec ¶¶ 21, 25. Thus, characterizing a firewall rule as “applicable” at
a VNIC or PNIC indicates that the rule is a functional firewall rule which,
when present on a VNIC or PNIC, can determine whether to allow or drop a
packet.
In the last step of claim, the ingress packet is dropped and not sent to
the destination VNIC “in response to determination that the PNIC-level
firewall rule blocks the ingress packet from passing through.” The PNIC-
level firewall rule is therefore applied at the PNIC to block an ingress packet
from passing through to the VNIC and destination virtualized computing
instance.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Bhagwat, as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of
Bhagat, describes PNIC-level and VNIC-level firewall rules. Ans. 5.
Appeal 2019-003102
Application 15/050,477

5
Specifically, the Examiner states that object attribute manager 114
comprising table 206, IP address manager 116 comprising table 208, and
NAT manager 116 comprising table 210 contain VNICs which the Examiner
finds represent VNIC-level firewall rules. Id. The Examiner also finds that
Bhagwat, as shown in Figure 2, describes configured firewall walls rules 214
which are PNIC-level firewall rules. Id. For clarity, each of the figures is
copied below.
Bhagwat’s Figure 1 is as follows:

Figure 1 of Bhagwat, reproduced above, shows the firewall
configuration in a virtual environment. Bhagwat ¶ 17. Virtual server 106
comprises virtual management software 108 which has object attribute
manager 114, IP address manager 116, NAT manager 118, and user firewall
rules manager 120. Bhagwat discloses that firewall manager 122 configures
Appeal 2019-003102
Application 15/050,477

6
the firewall rules by using the tables associated with the 114, 116, 118, and
120 managers. Bhagwat ¶¶ 18, 22.
The tables are shown in Figure 2 of Bhagwat, which is reproduced
below:

Figure 2 of Bhagwat, copied above, shows the management plane 202
which represents the virtual management server 106 shown in Figure 1. The
management plane 202 is shown with tables 206, 208, 210, and 212 which
are associated with managers 114, 116, 118, and 120, respectively, of Figure
1.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because Bhagwat does not
disclose that “the PNIC-level firewall rule is applicable at the PNIC and
generated based on a VNIC-level firewall rule applicable at the destination
VNIC” as recited in the second step of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2019-003102
Application 15/050,477

7
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner did not establish that
Bhagwat describes a “VNIC-level firewall rule applicable at the destination
VNIC.” As discussed in the claim interpretation section above, a VNIC
“applicable” rule must be a firewall rule that is functional and capable of
being applied at a VNIC to determine which packets to block or pass
through. The Examiner pointed to Figure 2, copied above, which comprises
tables 206, 208, and 210. Each of the tables have a VNIC entry; tables 208
and 210 also have destination addresses. However, the Examiner did not
establish that Bhagwat describes these tables as representing VNIC-level
firewall rules. Rather, Bhagwat teaches that firewall manager 122 configures
firewall rules using VM inventory objects from table 206 and then
transforms the rules by replacing the VM inventory objects with associated
IP addresses using IP address management table (IPAM) table 208 and
network address translation (NAT) table 210. Bhagwat ¶ 19. Bhagwat
teaches that firewall manager 122 “then sends the transformed firewall rules
to firewall engine 102 for filtering communication from and to VMs” on
host computing systems Id. As shown in Figure 1, firewall engine 102 is not
part of the virtual management server, but rather is on the network and host
computing system side.
Similarly, the user-specified firewall rules of manager 120 and
associated table 212 are transformed by firewall manager 112 into functional
rules and then directed to the data engine 102 on the network side. Id. at ¶
22.
Thus, we have not been guided to a description in Bhagwat that the
tables shown in Figure 2 represent VNIC firewall-level rules. Instead,
Bhagwat teaches that managers 114, 116, 118, and 120, and the associated
Appeal 2019-003102
Application 15/050,477

8
tables, are used by firewall manager 122 to formulate and automatically
update firewalls rules.
As explained in Bhagwat:
The firewall engine residing in the management layer based on
object representation maps it to an Internet Protocol (IP) address
and automatically configures the firewall located in the data path
layer based on the mapping information. Basically the technique
involves formulating firewall rules using virtual machine (VM)
identifiers and machine attributes, such as an IP address from a
network address translation (NAT) table and a network interface
card (NIC) assigned IP address from an IP address management
(IPAM) table. Using this technique allows the firewall to be
automatically updated anytime VMs are changed or
reconfigured.
Bhagwat ¶ 15 (emphasis added).
The “formulating” of the firewall rules using the identifiers and
machine attributes is performed by firewall manager 122 and
“communicatively coupled” to firewall engine 102 on the network and
computing system side. Bhagwat ¶ 18. The tables identified by the Examiner
as serving as the claimed “VNIC-level firewall rule applicable at the
destination VNIC” are not rules as explained above, but are used to
“formulate” the firewall rules that are communicated to the fire engine wall
in data plane 204 which is outside the virtual environment.
To anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a publication must “disclose all
elements of the claim within the four corners of the document” and
“arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d
1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Because the Examiner did not establish that
Bhagwat describes the “VNIC-level firewall rule applicable at the
destination VNIC,” we are compelled to reverse the anticipation rejection of
Appeal 2019-003102
Application 15/050,477

9
claim 1, independent claims 7 and 13 which recite the same limitation, and
dependent claim 4–6, 10–12, and 16–18.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–7, 10–13,
16–18
102 Bhagwat 1, 4–7, 10–13,
16–18

REVERSED