Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 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