Ex Parte Cowart et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 201813006614 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/006,614 01114/2011 124677 7590 04/30/2018 Russell Ng PLLC (IBM AUS) 8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100 Austin, TX 78757 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ROBERT COW ART 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. A US920 l 10002US 1 4891 EXAMINER HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2018 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): s tephanie@russellnglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT COWART, DAVID HADAS, DANIEL J. MARTIN, BRUCE RATCLIFF, and RENATO RECIO Appeal 2017-011250 Application 13/006,614 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 14--22 and 24--40, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-011250 Application 13/006,614 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to the Specification, the invention "relates in general to data processing, and in particular, to data processing environments including virtual networks." Spec. i-f 2. 2,3 The Specification explains that: (1) "a physical host executes a virtual machine monitor (VMM) that instantiates a source virtual machine (VM)"; (2) the VMM determines whether a packet can be communicated to a destination VM "without the packet being routed by" a default gateway; and (3) if so, "the VMM forwards the packet to the destination VM such that the packet bypasses routing by the default gateway." Abstract; see Spec. i-fi-18, 57. Exemplary Claim Independent claim 14 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as follows: 14. A data processing system, comprising: a network interface having a connection to a physical next hop router of an external network; a processor; and data storage, coupled to the processor, that includes program code executable by the processor, the program code 2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the Specification, filed January 14, 2011; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action, mailed November 4, 2016; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed March 6, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed July 5, 2017; and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed August 23, 2017. 3 We note this application is related to Application 13/456,476 (Appeal 2017-010992). This application contains apparatus claims, whereas Application 13/456,476 contains method claims. 2 Appeal2017-011250 Application 13/006,614 including a virtual machine monitor (VMM) that when executed causes the data processing system to perform: instantiating a source virtual machine (VM); in one or more data structures of the VMM, maintaining ( 1) address-based route information of network elements including the source VM and at least one physical network element in the external network and (2) additional information identifying one or more destination addresses as belonging to one or more virtual machines to which the VMM can communicate packets without the packets being routed by a default gateway; in response to the VMM receiving from the source VM a packet specifying a first destination address of a destination VM and a second destination address of the default gateway, said first and second destination addresses being at different network layers, the VMM determining by reference to the first destination address and the additional information whether the packet can be communicated to the destination VM without the packet being routed by the default gateway; and in response to the VMM determining that the packet can be communicated to the destination VM without the packet being routed by the default gateway, the VMM forwarding the packet to the destination VM such that the packet bypasses routing by the default gateway. App. Br. 14 (Claims App.). The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal As evidence ofunpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies on the following prior art: Donthamsetty et al. ("Donthamsetty") Srinivasan et al. ("Srinivasan") US 2011/0206047 Al US 2011/0255538 Al 3 Aug. 25, 2011 (filed Apr. 6, 2010) Oct. 20, 2011 (filed Apr. 16, 2010) Appeal2017-011250 Application 13/006,614 Alkhatib et al. ("Alkhatib") US 2011/0310899 Al The Re} ections on Appeal Dec. 22, 2011 (filed June 22, 2010) Claims 14--18, 21, 22, 24--32, and 35--40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Srinivasan and Donthamsetty. Final Act. 15-29. Claims 19, 20, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Srinivasan, Donthamsetty, and Alkhatib. Final Act. 29-31. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of claims 14--22 and 24--40 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellants' contention that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Srinivasan and Donthamsetty teach or suggest determining by reference to the destination-address information specified in the claims whether a packet can be communicated to a destination virtual machine without routing by a default gateway. The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 14-18, 21, 22, 24-32, and 35--40 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 14 and 28 because Srinivasan and Donthamsetty fail to teach or suggest the following limitation in each claim: in response to the VMM receiving from the source VM a packet specifying a first destination address of a destination VM and a second destination address of the default gateway, said first and second destination addresses being at different network layers, the VMM determining by reference to the first destination 4 Appeal2017-011250 Application 13/006,614 address and the additional information whether the packet can be communicated to the destination VM without the packet being routed by the default gateway. See App. Br. 10-16; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants note the Examiner relies on Srinivasan paragraph 20 and Figure 5 along with Donthamsetty paragraph 12 for the disputed limitation in claims 14 and 28. App. Br. 11, 14; see Final Act. 17-18. Appellants assert: (1) Srinivasan paragraph 20 describes Figure 4; and (2) Figure 4 discloses a technique for identifying destinations in a virtual network "utilizing the traffic destination rule of a network policy" where "'traffic is routed to the interfaces based on the traffic destination rule specified [in] the port profiles made active for the respective port groups.'" App. Br. 12 (quoting Srinivasan i-f 32) (alteration in original); see Reply Br. 5. Appellants also assert Srinivasan Figure 5 and the associated description in paragraph 33 "disclose a network policy specifying a traffic destination rule, such as redirect or span, which directs traffic destined for one port of a virtual switch to another port of the virtual switch" with the network policy "limited to 'destinations in a virtualized network.'" App. Br. 12 (quoting Srinivasan i-f 30); see Reply Br. 5 (citing Srinivasan i-f 30). In addition, Appellants contend Donthamsetty paragraph 12 "discloses that reaching the default gateway is critical to support virtual or physical device migration between virtual networks." App. Br. 15. Based on Srinivasan, the Examiner finds (1) "when there is communication between" two virtual machines residing on the same physical machine "it is obvious that, the Hypervisor VMM knows that, the packet would not need to be sent to the NIC 208 - since the communication, is [an] internal communication"; and (2) "if the communication is between" 5 Appeal2017-011250 Application 13/006,614 a virtual machine and "the Data Communication Network 210, then the default gateway, NIC 208, would need to be utilized." Final Act. 17; see Ans. 8-10. In addition, the Examiner finds that "when a device" in Donthamsetty "has not migrated," the "system knows this fact, and if the communication is internal, the default gateway, would be by-passed." Final Act. 18-19 (citing Donthamsetty i-f 12). Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Srinivasan and Donthamsetty teach or suggest determining by reference to the destination-address information specified in claims 14 and 28 whether a packet can be communicated to a destination virtual machine without routing by a default gateway. The cited portions of Srinivasan disclose routing by virtual switches to "destinations in a virtualized network" using traffic destination rules specified in a network policy, e.g., a "redirect rule or span/mirror rule to a port with an SVM [service virtual machine] port profile." See Srinivasan i1i130, 32-33, Figs. 2, 4--5, 6A---6B. The cited portions of Donthamsetty disclose: (1) common default gateway IP and MAC addresses for two different gateway routers in two different networks; (2) devices on the different networks addressing packets with the common default gateway MAC address; and (3) packets with that MAC address "reach[ing] the default gateway" for the respective network. See Donthamsetty i-fi-f 12, 42, Fig. 1. The Examiner provides insufficient technical reasoning regarding how the combination of disclosures in Srinivasan and Donthamsetty teaches or suggests the disputed limitation in claims 14 and 28. See Final Act. 4, 7, 6 Appeal2017-011250 Application 13/006,614 17-19; Ans. 8-10, 19. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 14 and 28. Claims 15-18, 21, 22, and 24--27 depend directly or indirectly from claim 14, while claims 29-32 and 35--40 depend directly or indirectly from claim 28. For the reasons discussed regarding the independent claims, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims. The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 19, 20, 33, and 34 Claims 19 and 20 depend indirectly from claim 14, whereas claims 33 and 34 depend indirectly from claim 28. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited Alkhatib reference overcomes the deficiencies in Srinivasan and Donthamsetty discussed above for claims 14 and 28. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims. Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to claims 14--22 and 24--40, we need not address Appellants' other arguments regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a decision based on "a single dispositive issue"). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 14--22 and 24--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation