Nicira, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 9, 20212020000313 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/385,563 12/20/2016 Neelima Balakrishnan N303.02 (NCRA.P0534) 1019 109858 7590 06/09/2021 ADELI LLP P.O. Box 516 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 EXAMINER GHOWRWAL, OMAR J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2021 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): 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 NEELIMA BALAKRISHNAN, NINAD GHODKE, RISHI MEHTA, BANIT AGRAWAL, RAMYA BOLLA, and SIMING LI Appeal 2020-000313 Application 15/385,563 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. Appeal 2020-000313 Application 15/385,563 2 DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–9, 11, and 19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “[a]nalysis of simultaneous multi-point packet capture.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for presenting packets captured at a plurality of points in a traversal through a network, the method comprising: at a controller, receiving, from at least one agent operating on a first host computer, a first packet group comprising a first set of packets; receiving, from at least one agent operating on a second host computers, a second packet group comprising a second set of packets, that corresponds to the first set of packets, the first and second packet groups comprising packets associated with a logical network implemented by managed forwarding elements executing on the host computers including the first and second host computers; 1 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 VMware, Inc. and Nicira, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The Final Action on page 1 indicates claim 10 is rejected; however, the detailed action does not address claim 10. Appeal 2020-000313 Application 15/385,563 3 comparing the two sets of packets to identify a set of issues with the second set of packets; and displaying representations of the first and second captured packet groups, wherein at least one of the first set of packets and the second set of packets is presented with a different appearance from other packets of their respective packet group to represent the set of issues with the second set of packets. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Belenky US 2005/0204170 A1 Sept. 15, 2005 Hsu US 2014/0011455 A1 Jan. 9, 2014 Schneider US 2014/0215307 A1 July 31, 2014 Hillary US 2014/0331159 A1 Nov. 6, 2014 Edsall US 2015/0124826 A1 May 7, 2015 Bowman US 2017/0031599 A1 Feb. 2, 2017 REJECTIONS Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schneider. Final Act. 4–5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Schneider and Hsu. Final Act. 6–7. Claims 4–6, 9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Schneider and Bowman. Final Act. 7–22. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Schneider, Bowman, and Edsall. Final Act. 12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Schneider, Bowman, and Belenky. Final Act. 13–14. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Schneider and Hillary. Final Act. 14–15. Appeal 2020-000313 Application 15/385,563 4 OPINION The Anticipation Rejection of Claim 1 by Schneider The Examiner finds Schneider discloses all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4–5. In particular, the Examiner finds Schneider discloses “the first and second packet groups comprising packets associated with a logical network implemented by managed forwarding elements executing on the host computers including the first and second host computers” (claim 1). See Final Act. 4 (citing Schneider ¶¶ 28–29, 36, 38–39, Figs. 2, 4) (“receiving content (i.e. packets) from remote server (i.e. host) with remote producer application (i.e. agent), both over industry standard subsystems (i.e. logical network) which agents (i.e. managed forwarding elements) on both sources use for content transmission”). Among other contentions, Appellant contends Schneider does not disclose “the first and second packet groups comprising packets associated with a logical network implemented by managed forwarding elements executing on the host computers including the first and second host computers” (claim 1). See Appeal Br. 5–7, 8–10. In support of this contention, Appellant presents the following principal arguments: “[T]he Office Action failed to cite references that disclose or suggest first and second sets of packets associated with a logical network.” Appeal Br. 5. “Instead, the allegedly anticipatory reference generates web pages with content received from two different producer applications displayed independently.” Appeal Br. 5. Independent claims 1 and 19 recite receiving first and second packet groups associated with a logical network implemented by managed forwarding elements executing on first and second host computers. Schneider fails to disclose any logical networks and is instead cited for its disclosure of Appeal 2020-000313 Application 15/385,563 5 “industry standard subsystems” which are completely unrelated to the claimed logical networks and cannot sustain either a rejection based on anticipation (claim 1) or a rejection based on obviousness (claim 19). Appeal Br. 8–9. “The Office Action appears to identify subsystems that exchange packets as a logical network, such an identification entirely ignores the limitation in the claims that the logical network is implemented by managed forwarding elements executing on host computers including the first and second host computers.” Appeal Br. 9. “Using subsystems for content transmission is not equivalent to implementing a logical network (or even implementing the subsystems).” Appeal Br. 9. In response, the Examiner explains Schneider teaches a remote server (i.e. host computer) with an application (i.e. managed forwarding element, as it runs on the server (manager) and forwards content) and a client server (i.e. host computer) with an application (i.e. managed forwarding element, as it runs on the server (manager) and forwards content) are associated with industry-standard subsystems (para. 0028, JSF application may be a subsystem of the producer application that provides remote content to the consumer application .... Portlet Renderer may be a subsystem that exists on the side of a consumer application), which the content traverses, and Examiner interprets as a logical network (figs. 2, 4, para. 0028- 0029, 0036, 0038-0039). Ans. 15–16. In reply, Appellant argues In equating (1) applications to managed forwarding elements and (2) industry-standard subsystems to logical networks, the Answer suggests an overly broad interpretation of both managed forwarding elements and logical networks that completely ignores the limitation that the managed forwarding elements executing on first and second host computers implement the logical network. Appeal 2020-000313 Application 15/385,563 6 Reply Br. 3. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appellant’s Specification discloses “[t]he logical network 200 includes three logical forwarding elements (a logical router 225 and two logical switches 220 and 230) that describe the desired forwarding behaviors for the end machines VMs [(virtual machines)] 1-4 in the logical network.” Spec. ¶ 84. Thus, we interpret a “logical network” as a collection of logical forwarding elements that describe forwarding behaviors. Spec. ¶ 84. Appellant’s Specification further discloses, [t]he physical network 205 shows the actual physical connections between the end machines VMs 1-4 and PM 5. Physical network 205 shows two hosts 265 and 270. The hosts 265 and 270 have MSFEs [(managed software forwarding elements)] 255 and 260, which connect to VMs 1 and 3, and VMs 2 and 4, respectively. Spec. ¶ 85. Thus, we interpret “managed forwarding elements” as elements executing on host computers and implementing forwarding behaviors of the logical network. Spec. ¶ 85. Accordingly, we interpret the key disputed limitation of “the first and second packet groups comprising packets associated with a logical network implemented by managed forwarding elements executing on the host computers including the first and second host computers” (claim 1) as requiring a collection of logical forwarding elements that describe forwarding behaviors (logical network) implemented by managed software forwarding elements executing on the first and second host computers (managed forwarding elements). Appeal 2020-000313 Application 15/385,563 7 On the record before us, we determine Schneider does not disclose the key disputed limitation. Schneider discloses A system for generating a web page that integrates content from different content sources. The system defines a request configured to be transmitted from a consumer application to a producer application. The request is for the producer application to provide content to the consumer application. The system adds additional custom data to the request via a plurality of integration points. The additional custom data is configured to be interpreted by handlers corresponding to the integration points. The system receives content produced by the producer application. The producer application produces the content based upon the request and the additional custom data. The system displays the received content to appear as an integrated whole with other content on a page. Schneider, Abstract. Schneider further discloses “Portlet Renderer 210 may be a subsystem of the framework that exists on the side of a consumer application. Portlet Renderer 210 may be the subsystem that is responsible for receiving content from a remote producer application, embedding the content, and displaying the content on at least one page.” Schneider ¶ 28. Schneider further discloses “Producer JSF Application [(JavaServer Faces Application)] 204 may be a subsystem of the producer application that provides remote content to the consumer application (e.g., the consumer application of Portlet Renderer 210).” Schneider ¶ 28. In short, we interpret claim 1 as requiring (1) a collection of logical forwarding elements that describe forwarding behaviors (logical network), and (2) managed software forwarding elements executing on the first and Appeal 2020-000313 Application 15/385,563 8 second host computers (managed forwarding elements) that implement the described forwarding behaviors. We do not see findings supported by Schneider that meet both of these requirements. According to the Examiner, Schneider’s producer application and Schneider’s consumer application constitute managed forwarding elements. Ans. 15–16. Further, according to the Examiner, Schneider’s industry-standard subsystems including Producer JSF Application and Porter Renderer constitute a logical network. Ans. 15–16. These findings are insufficient to determine Schneider’s disclosures anticipate claim 1 because according to the claim, the managed forwarding elements implement the logical network’s described forwarding behaviors (for example, switching, routing). In Schneider, we do not readily see Schneider’s producer application and Schneider’s consumer application implement the logical network’s (industry-standard subsystems including Producer JSF Application and Porter Renderer) described forwarding behaviors. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 3 over Schneider and Hsu The Examiner does not find Hsu cures the deficiency of Schneider. See Final Act. 6–7. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4–6, 9, and 19 over Schneider and Bowman The Examiner does not find Bowman cures the deficiency of Schneider. See Final Act. 7–22. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–6, 9, and 19. Appeal 2020-000313 Application 15/385,563 9 The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 7 over Schneider, Bowman, and Edsall The Examiner does not find Bowman and Edsall cure the deficiency of Schneider. See Final Act. 12. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 8 over Schneider, Bowman, and Belenky The Examiner does not find Bowman and Belenky cure the deficiency of Schneider. See Final Act. 13–14. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 11 over Schneider and Hillary The Examiner does not find Hillary cures the deficiency of Schneider. See Final Act. 14–15. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–9, 11, and 19 is reversed.3 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 102(a)(1) Schneider 1 3 103 Schneider, Hsu 3 4–6, 9, 19 103 Schneider, Bowman 4–6, 9, 19 7 103 Schneider, Bowman, Edsall 7 3 Our decision does not address claim 10 because the detailed action does not address claim 10. Nonetheless, claim 10 depends from claim 1, and we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. Appeal 2020-000313 Application 15/385,563 10 8 103 Schneider, Bowman, Belenky 8 11 103 Schneider, Hillary 11 Overall Outcome 1, 3–9, 11, 19 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation