Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

2019004273 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
14/519,007 10/20/2014 David Hood P44364 US1 4929
152435 7590 11/03/2020
SAGE PATENT GROUP/ZACCO
PO BOX 30789
RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, ELTON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
outsourcing@zacco.com
zaccoinstructions@sagepat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID HOOD
Appeal 2019-004273
Application 14/519,007
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–23. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We refer to the Specification, filed October 20, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed September 14, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action,
mailed (December 6, 2018 (“Advisory Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed February
12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 8, 2019
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed May 8, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 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 Telefonaktiebolaget L
M Ericsson (Publ). Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004273
Application 14/519,007
2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an “automated and iterative process for
refining match action tables from general to network device specific
implementations” in data packet forwarding applications. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method implemented by a processor of a networking device
for generating an output match action table or output match
action table template from an input match action table template,
where the input match action table template and the output match
action template have a same format with a match criteria field
column and an action field column, the match criteria field
column formatted to hold packet matching criteria and the action
field column formatted to hold an executable command to act on
a packet that matches a corresponding matching criteria from a
same row, where the input match action table template is
transformed through successive updates of symbolic actions
using policy rules into the output match action table or output
match action table template, the method comprising:
selecting a first match action table row from the input
match action table template;
selecting a first action field from the first match action
table row;
checking whether the first action field includes a first
symbolic action, the first symbolic action being a reference
identifying an abstraction of an action to be resolved into an
executable action by the network device;
looking up the first symbolic action to determine whether
a first policy rule has been defined for the first symbolic action;
writing, by the network device, a first action into the first
action field in the input match action table or a copy thereof to
form the output match action table template or the output match
action table to replace the first symbolic action where the first
action is specified by the first policy rule; and
Appeal 2019-004273
Application 14/519,007
3
processing data traffic at the network device according to
a final match action table derived from the output match action
table.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Fulton US 2013/0058350 A1 Mar. 7, 2013
REJECTION
Claims 1–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fulton. Final Act. 4–17.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
OPINION
The Examiner finds Fulton’s method for managing logical system
elements teaches or suggests all limitations of the claims. Final Act. 4. In
particular, the Examiner finds
Figs 29 A and B [of Fulton] show selecting a row and an action
field and using the rules engine to populate the action field based
on the rule as described in [0315] – [0324]. Fig. 33 A-D shows
another match action output table creation based on QOS rules
as described in [0368] – [0387]. This is all performed in the
logical control plane to be further passed to the managed
switching element as described in [0036][.] The physical control
plane data is propagated to the managed switching elements,
which in turn will produce forwarding plane data (e.g., flow
entries) for defining forwarding behaviors of the switches[.]
Abstract[.] The logical switching element receives and sends
Appeal 2019-004273
Application 14/519,007
4
data packets through the logical ports. The logical switching
element is implemented in a set of managed switching elements
that forward data packets in a network. [0088][.] Switching
elements generally receive data (e.g., a data packet) and perform
one or more processing operations on the data, such as dropping
a received data packet, passing a packet that is received from one
source device to another destination device, processing the
packet and then passing it a destination device, etc. In some
embodiments, the physical control plane data that is pushed to a
switching element is converted by the switching element (e.g.,
by a general purpose processor of the switching element) to
physical forwarding plane data that specifies how the switching
element (e.g., how a specialized switching circuit of the
switching element) processes data packets that it receives.
Id. at 5–6 (emphasis omitted). Addressing the claimed match action table,
the Examiner finds
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of filing to organize data into a given form for
processing data based on network criteria and to create routing
tables from steps leading up to the creation of routing tables
[which] is well known in the art as there must be manipulations
of data in order to organize entries into a routing table based on
network criteria.
Id. at 6.
Appellant contends
[The] Patent Office has not specifically shown that any part of
Fulton is equivalent to the “input match action table template”
and the “output match action template” that have the specific
format of a “match criteria field column formatted to hold packet
matching criteria and the action field column formatted to hold
an executable command.” As discussed further below, the Patent
Office variously implies in the Final Office Action and the
Advisory Action that one or more of the logical or physical
control plane data and/or the logical or physical forwarding plane
data in Fulton are equivalent to the recited match action tables
Appeal 2019-004273
Application 14/519,007
5
without showing that any of this data have the recited format. At
other times the Patent Office asserts that the match action tables
are equivalent to rules engine tables
Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellant argues nowhere in any of the cited
paragraphs of Fulton is there a teaching of “match action tables with a match
criteria column and an action field column where the action field contains a
symbolic action” as required by the claims. According to Appellant,
The cited paragraphs of Fulton describe a control application that
“converts control data records . . . to forwarding plane data
records,” and a “system [that] writes flow entries to the control
table(s) using the OpenFlow protocol,” as well as general
manipulations of logical and physical control plane data, and
logical and physical forwarding plane data. There is no explicit
mention that any of these records or control plane/forwarding
plane data have the match action table structure or include
symbolic actions as recited in the claims.
Id. at 7–8.
The Examiner responds, finding
It is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that a forwarding table
made of memory has a form of representation or location for each
entry in order to be filled with a forwarding step for packet
forwarding and in this case Fulton[,] having logical forwarding
tables that will be converted to physical forwarding tables
[(]Fulton [0225]–[0226][),] the generated logical forwarding
plane data is transmitted to the virtualization application, which
subsequently generate physical control plane data from the
logical forwarding plane data. The physical control plane data is
propagated to the managed switching elements, which in turn
will produce forwarding plane data (e.g., flow entries) for
defining forwarding behaviors of the switches.
Ans. 8.
Appeal 2019-004273
Application 14/519,007
6
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error. The
Examiner fails to identify, and we do not ascertain any disclosure by Fulton
teaching or suggesting the claimed match table structure. In particular, the
Examiner fails to show that Fulton’s input table includes an action field
column formatted to hold an executable command and that Fulton teaches
checking the action field for a symbolic action, the symbolic action being a
reference identifying an abstraction of an action to be resolved into an
executable action by a network device, as recited in independent claim 1. On
the record before us, the Examiner has pointed to insufficient evidence to
support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to organize data into
the claimed form for processing (Final Act. 6).
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s
other arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or, for the same reasons, the
rejection of independent claims 8, 12, and 18, which include similar
limitations, or the rejection of dependent claims 2–7, 9–11, 13–17, and 19–
23, which stand with their respective base claim.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appeal 2019-004273
Application 14/519,007
7
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–23 103 Fulton 1–23

REVERSED