Ygdal Naouri

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 19, 2021

2020001547 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 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. 14/266,250 04/30/2014 Ygdal Naouri P62687 6301 96162 7590 08/19/2021 Law Office of R. Alan Burnett, PS c/o CPA Global 900 Second Avenue South, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER BOUSTANY, JIHAD KAMAL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2459 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/19/2021 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): admin@compassiplaw.com alan@compassiplaw.com alan@patentlylegal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YGDAL NAOURI Appeal 2020-001547 Application 14/266,250 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge. 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 1–30, which are all of the pending claims. See Final Act. 1–2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the term “Appellant” herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-001547 Application 14/266,250 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The subject matter of the present application is a method and apparatus for minimizing the amount of buffer space (on-die memory) needed in switches used for data transfers (e.g., over the Internet). See Spec. Abs., ¶ 26. By way of background, the Specification describes implementations of “cloud-based” services, which require transfers of large amounts of data between servers interconnected using network links, such as Ethernet. Id. ¶ 1. The Specification notes that packet loss is undesirable in such transfers, and describes various approaches that have been employed to reduce packet loss, which also have various drawbacks. Id. ¶¶ 2–10. The Specification purports to describe and claim an improvement to reducing on- die memory requirements by using “switching environments where traffic is pulled and not pushed.” Id. ¶ 30. Claims 1, 12, and 23 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative: 1. A method for transferring data between a plurality of servers and a disaggregated edge switch, comprising: communicatively coupling the plurality of servers to the disaggregated edge switch via respective local communication links between an outer port on the disaggregated edge switch and a communication port on each server, each server communication port comprising a source local port, each outer port comprising a port in a physical communication interface on the disaggregated edge switch and comprising a destination local port; and transferring data between the disaggregated edge switch and the plurality of servers using pull-mode data transfers under which, for each pull-mode data transfer, data is pulled from a server by the physical communication interface on the disaggregated edge switch and transferred over the local communication link between the source local port on the server Appeal 2020-001547 Application 14/266,250 3 and the destination local port coupled to the local communication link. Appeal Br. 67 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Olesinski2 US 7,925,816 B2 Apr. 12, 2011 Acharya US 2008/0069138 A1 Mar. 20, 2008 Matthews US 2011/0029710 A1 Feb. 3, 2011 Robbin US 2011/0264732 A1 Oct. 27, 2011 Gumaste US 2012/0106560 A1 May 2, 2012 Ben-Michael US 2014/0059266 A1 Feb. 27, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1–5, 7–10, 23–25, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1033 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ben-Michael, Robbin, and Matthews. Final Act. 10–19. Claims 6 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ben-Michael, Robbin, Matthews, and Gumaste. Final Act. 19–21. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ben-Michael, Robbin, Matthews, and Acharya. Final Act. 21–22. 2 All references are cited using the first-named inventor. 3 The Examiner’s rejections are under the provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code in effect after the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Appeal 2020-001547 Application 14/266,250 4 Claims 12–21 and 26–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ben-Michael, Olesinski, Robbin, and Matthews. Final Act. 22–30. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ben-Michael, Olesinski, Robbin, Matthews, and Gumaste. Final Act. 31. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Ben-Michael, Olesinski, Robbin, Matthews, and Acharya. Final Act. 32. OPINION The Examiner finds that Ben-Michael teaches most of the limitations of independent claim 1 (Final Act. 10–11 (citing Ben-Michael ¶¶ 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36, 40, Figs. 2, 6a)), but also finds that, although Ben-Michael teaches a switch, Ben-Michael “fails to teach . . . a disaggregated edge switch and for each pull-mode data transfer, data is pulled from a server” (id. at 11). The Examiner relies on Robbin to teach pulling data from a server. Id. (citing Robbin ¶ 7). The Examiner determines that sufficient motivation existed to combine the teachings of Ben-Michael and Robbin because “pulling data allows for the receiving device to determine when to receive data rather than expending resources on keeping a channel of data open for constant data reception.” Id. Appellant argues that Robbin does not disclose a pull-mode operation within the context of claim 1, because Robbin discloses a software-based download operation in which “a networked media device ‘pulls’ multimedia data from one or more sources (e.g., a multimedia website or a multimedia server computer) using conventional communication protocols associated Appeal 2020-001547 Application 14/266,250 5 with downloading media from the source to the networked media device.” Appeal Br. 32. Appellant contends that the claimed invention, in contrast, requires pull-mode data transfers in which “data is pulled from a server by the physical communication interface on the disaggregated switch.” Id. at 25, 67 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appellant contends the Examiner’s finding of a motivation to combine is in error because the Examiner’s alleged benefit of “keeping a channel open for constant data reception” is “not disclosed or suggested by either Robbin or Ben-Michael.” Id. at 25. Appellant further contends that Robbin does no[t] use a “channel” for transferring data, and under Ethernet the receiver in the Ethernet network interface continuously monitors the Ethernet link to determine when data is being transmitted to the receiver as part of the Ethernet protocol. This does not involve expending any resources, but rather is inherent to the Ethernet protocol, and is implemented in the receiver hardware. Id. Appellant further argues that [c]ombining a software-based scheme that requires use of a software network stack and operating system, such as taught by Robbin, with a hardware-based scheme under which the hardware is specifically tailored to perform a particular function or set of functions, such as the shared NIC in Ben-Michael, would result in a combination with substantially worse performance than provided by Ben-Michael alone. Id. at 45–46. In the Answer, the Examiner asserts Ben-Michael “teaches the physical interface of the switch . . . [and] Robbin cures the deficiency of Ben[-Michael] by providing pull-mode data transfers.” Ans. 9 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further contends that “Appellant merely combines two known elements in the claims, a physical interface on a switch using Appeal 2020-001547 Application 14/266,250 6 Ethernet communications, and pull-mode data transfers.” Id. at 10. According to the Examiner, obviousness is shown here because combining the teachings of the references amounts to “applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results.” Id. In Reply, Appellant reiterates that the Examiner’s findings are deficient with regard to pull-mode data transfers. Reply Br. 6–10. In particular, Appellant contends that Robbin discloses a “conventional communication interface” (software-driven) to download media from a source to a networked media device, and that Ben-Michael discloses a conventional, physical communication interface of a switch that employs push-mode data transfers; and, therefore, neither “uses a pull-mode or pull- model implemented by the physical communication interface.” Id. at 9–10. Appellant further states: The only traffic that originates at the physical interface of the switch under Ben-Michael is outbound traffic that is transmitted from a switch port using a push model. Any traffic received at the physical interface of the switch originates from a server. This is the opposite of what is being claimed. All traffic between the physical interfaces of the switch under Ben- Michael employ conventional push modes/models. Likewise, all traffic between the physical interfaces in Robbin employ conventional push modes/models. Robbin’s pull-mode isn’t implemented by a physical interface, as required by claim 1. Id. at 14 (emphasis added). Appellant continues: “[t]he Examiner also provides insufficient evidence to why a PHOSITA, upon looking at Ben- Michael, Robbin, and Matthews would have any motivation to combine the teachings to use a pull-mode or pull-model implemented by a physical communication interface.” Id. Appeal 2020-001547 Application 14/266,250 7 We are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. As the Examiner concedes, Ben-Michael does not disclose pull-mode data transfers. Final Act. 11. The Examiner relies on Robbin as teaching pull-mode data transfers. Id. But claim 1 requires more than just pull-mode data transfers— it requires “for each pull-mode data transfer, data is pulled from a server by the physical communication interface on the disaggregated edge switch.” Appeal Br. 67 (emphasis added). Thus, to render the claim obvious, the combination must teach not just a physical communication interface and a pull-mode data transfer, but must teach a pull-mode data transfer by the physical communication interface. However, we discern nothing in the cited disclosure of Robbin, or the Examiner’s explanation related to it, that explains how Robbin effects a pull-mode data transfer. Also lacking from the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the rejection is an explanation of how or why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the non-specific disclosure in Robbin of obtaining data “using a pull operation,” with Ben-Michael’s disclosure of a physical communication interface, to arrive at the claimed pull-mode data transfer “by the physical communication interface.” The Examiner’s reasoning in the Answer—that combining the teachings of Robbin and Ben-Michael simply applies “a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results” (Ans. 10)—is conclusory, particularly in light of Robbin’s silence on the manner in which pull-mode data transfers are effected. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); KSR Int’l Appeal 2020-001547 Application 14/266,250 8 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Kahn). The Examiner’s stated rationale for making the combination—to allow “for the receiving device to determine when to receive data” (Final Act. 11)—falls short of explaining how or why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have applied Robbin’s teaching to Ben-Michael to result in the claimed invention—specifically, implementing a pull-mode data transfer by the physical communication interface. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.4 For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 23, which recites limitations commensurate to those of claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 72–73) and stands rejected on the same basis (see Final Act. 16–18). Independent claim 12 also recites limitations commensurate to those of claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 69–70), and is rejected based on the same reasoning. See Final Act. 22–25. Although claim 12 is rejected based on an additional reference (Olesinski) not cited for claim 1, the Examiner does not rely on that reference in a manner that cures the deficiencies we have determined in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. See id. The dependent claims (2–11, 13–22, and 23–30) stand with their respective independent claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–30 are not sustained. 4 Appellant’s contentions present additional issues. Because the identified issue is dispositive of Appellant’s arguments on appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. Appeal 2020-001547 Application 14/266,250 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7–10, 23–25, 30 103 Ben-Michael, Robbin, Matthews 1–5, 7–10, 23–25, 30 6, 29 103 Ben-Michael, Robbin, Matthews, Gumaste 6, 29 11 103 Ben-Michael, Robbin, Matthews, Acharya 11 12–21, 26– 28 103 Ben-Michael, Olesinski, Robbin, Matthews 12–21, 26– 28 19 103 Ben-Michael, Olesinski, Robbin, Matthews, Gumaste 19 22 103 Ben-Michael, Olesinski, Robbin, Matthews, Acharya 22 Overall Outcome 1–30 REVERSED