Ex Parte Seetharama et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 201612945653 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/945,653 11/12/2010 Gururaj SEETHARAMA 97531 7590 03/08/2016 Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP 15 W. 26th Street 7th Floor New York, NY 10010 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. 10033-2011500 8227 EXAMINER STILTNER, WEIWEI YE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GURURAJ SEETHARAMA and SHAJI ILLIAS CHENNAN KUNNUMMEL Appeal2014-004111 Application 12/945,653 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed August 22, 2013 ("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed February 11, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed December 12, 2013 ("Ans."); and Final Office Action mailed March 4, 2013 ("Final Act."). 2 Appellants identify Yahoo! Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-004111 Application 12/945,653 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method for pathing analysis, the method comprising: receiving, at a server, a query identifying one or more nodes; identifying one or more prior queries that include at least one of the one or more nodes; accessing metadata associated with the one or more prior quenes; selecting, based on the metadata, one or more data partitions for further processing; causing one or more computers to identify one or more paths in the selected data partitions, wherein the one or more paths comprise at least the one or more nodes; and presenting the identified paths as an output to the query. Dn-fn1~nMFlnP 1\..V/CA Vfit, .. ,.,c,,LJ Avidan us 6,158,022 Dec. 5, 2000 Choe US 2002/0118682 Al Aug.29,2002 Chand et al. US 2008/0195729 Al Aug. 14, 2008 Wang et al. US 2009/0063516 Al Mar. 5, 2009 Castillo et al. US 2009/0097418 Al Apr. 16, 2009 Bagrodia et al. US 7,774,440 Bl Aug. 10, 2010 2 Appeal2014-004111 Application 12/945,653 Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang and Castillo. Ans. 2; Final Act. 6-11. Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Castillo, and Avidan. Ans. 2; Final Act. 11-12. Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Castillo, Avidan, and Choe. Ans. 2; Final Act. 12- 13. Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Castillo, and Chand. Ans. 3; Final Act. 13-15. Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Castillo, and Bagrodia. Ans. 3; Final Act. 15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner erred. See App. Br. 5-12; Reply Br. 1-3. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue Wang does not teach "metadata associated with the one or more prior queries," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants assert that Wang teaches metadata related to the network, not one or more prior queries. App. Br. 6 (citing Wang i-f 27). Appellants further contend Wang teaches that "only data describing the relevant member(s) is to be loaded." App. Br. 6 (quoting Wang i-f 31). Appellants then argue the Examiner erred in finding Wang teaches "selecting, based on the metadata, 3 Appeal2014-004111 Application 12/945,653 one or more data partitions for further processing," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-7. We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner relies upon Castillo, not Wang, to teach "metadata associated with one or more prior queries." Ans. 5; Final Act. 7 (citing Castillo i-fi-189, 90). The Examiner further finds Wang teaches the partition table is "metadata." Ans. 4 (citing Wang i127). Wang teaches data, which may be stored in the partition table, "may facilitate identifying which partition(s) is relevant to the network analysis request." Wang i128 (cited at Final Act. 7). The Examiner additionally finds Wang teaches "with the relevant partitions identified ... selectively loading data associated [with] the member( s) into a memory associated with the processor." Ans. 4 (quoting Wang i131). Wang also teaches "identifying a member of the set of network partitions associated with the network analysis request." Wang i129. We agree with the Examiner that Wang teaches that a member is one of the partitions and that the data in the partition table is metadata upon which partitions are identified and data associated therewith is loaded for processing. Appellants contend Castillo does not teach "identifying one or more prior queries that include at least one of the one or more nodes," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants assert Castillo teaches querying the Network Path Database for the packet flows that are deliverable to compute paths that a given application's traffic can traverse. App. Br. 8 (citing Castillo i-fi-189, 90). Appellants argue Castillo does not discuss "prior queries." App. Br. 8. Appellants then contend the matrix used to populate the Network Path Database is not in tum populated from prior queries, but populated based on theoretical models of reachability 4 Appeal2014-004111 Application 12/945,653 and matrix multiplication. Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Castillo iii! 89, 90). Appellants additionally assert Castillo's explicit teaching of querying the Network Path Database indicates that there are no "prior queries." Reply Br. 3 (citing Castillo if 89). The Examiner finds Castillo teaches routes that have been initially distributed according to policies with subsequent queries to determine deliverability of packets based on respective sources and destinations in the subsequent queries. Ans. 5---6 (citing Castillo iii! 88, 89, Fig. 5). Specifically, Castillo teaches: A Routing Information Base (228) is created for each process (214) and is initialized with a route for each interface to its configured subnet, as well as any manually configured and static routes (216) . ... When routes have been thoroughly distributed, the destinations that may be routed for each interface on a device 410 are represented as "permitted" packet sets and all others as "denied" (220). These virtual packet filters may then be intersected with those on the outbound edge of the device 410 (222). Subsequent application of the matrix multiplications (224) \Vill then reflect deliverability of packets only over paths permitted by the routing configuration .... Given a source and destination, one can query the Network Path Database for the packet flows that are deliverable, and retrieve the list of Router-to- Route links that may be traversed in their delivery. Castillo iii! 88-89. The Examiner further finds the "Network Path Database is populated from a matrix, derived based on distributed routes that have been determined to be 'permitted' or 'denied."' Ans. 6 (citing Castillo if 89, Fig. 5). We agree with the Examiner that the Network Path Database evolves with the inclusion of subsequent routes, each queried with input source and destination, and processed by matrix multiplications. Ans. 6. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that these subsequent routes incorporated in the 5 Appeal2014-004111 Application 12/945,653 Network Path Database in Castillo are based on "identifying one or more prior queries that include at least one of the one or more nodes," as recited in claim 1. Id. Appellants then argue, because Castillo does not teach "one or more prior queries," it does not teach "accessing metadata associated with the one or more prior queries," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9. Appellants contend Castillo teaches that the Network Path Database can be queried for packet flows that are deliverable. App. Br. 9 (citing Castillo i-f 89). However, Appellants assert that Castillo does not teach that "the Network Path Database includes 'information associated with the one or more prior queries.'" Id. For the reasons explained by the Examiner, we are not persuaded of error. Ans. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds Castillo teaches each query includes information of the source and destination of a queried route. Id. The Examiner also finds that this information associated with the queries is included in the Network Path Database. Id. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that this information is accessed with subsequent queries. Id. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Castillo teaches "accessing metadata associated with the one or more prior queries," as recited in claim 1. Based upon the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not present additional persuasive arguments regarding claims 2-21 (App. Br. 10-12), and, therefore, we sustain the rejections of these claims. 6 Appeal2014-004111 Application 12/945,653 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation