Nicira, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 9, 2021

2020000313 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 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.
15/385,563 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