Ex Parte Yu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2016

13030806 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/030,806 02/18/2011
73257 7590 07119/2016
PVF -- Brocade Communications Systems Inc.
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 Fifth Street
Davis, CA 95618
Shunjia Yu
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.
BRCD-3038.1.US.NP 3482
EXAMINER
AMBA YE, MEW ALE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2016 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):
sy _incoming@parklegal.com
j eannie@parklegal.com
wendy@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUNJIA YU, ANOOP GHANW ANI, NAGARAJAN
VENKATESAN, RAJIV KRISHNAMURTHY, PHANIDHAR KOGANTI,
and MYTHILIKANTH RAMAN
Appeal2015-002057
Application 13/030,806
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-11, 13-18, 20, and 21, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. Claims 5, 12, and 19 have been
cancelled. Br. 15, 16, and 18. Because the application has been twice
rejected, we have jurisdiction over the appeal of the Non-Final Rejection
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134. Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420,
1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002057
Application 13/030,806
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a switch used for network layer
multicasting in TRILL ("Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links")
networks. Abstract, Spec. i-fi-13, 6-9.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A switch, comprising:
a determining module operable to determine a an internal
multicast group identifier based on a multicast-address and a
source address of the multicast packet, wherein the multicast
packet is associated with a first multicast tree corresponding to a
first virtual network, and wherein usage of internal multicast
group identifier is internal to the switch;
a forwarding module operable to:
determine for the multicast packet one or more
output ports associated with the first multicast tree
associated with the first virtual network based on the local
internal multicast group identifier, wherein the internal
multicast group identifier maps to the one or more output
ports for the multicast packet; and
determine for a copy of the multicast packet one or
more output ports associated with a second multicast tree
corresponding to a second virtual network.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Bane~jee et al. US 2010/0061269 Al Mar. 11, 2010
Rajagopalan et al. US 2010/0309820 Al Dec. 9, 2010
2
Appeal2015-002057
Application 13/030,806
Radia Perlman et al., RBridges: Base Protocol Specification, TRILL
Working Group, INTERNET-DRAFT (Mar. 3, 2010) (hereinafter
"Perlman").
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14--17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perlman in view of Banerjee. Final Act.
3-5.
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perlman in view of Banerjee and
Rajagopalan. Final Act. 5---6.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we considered
all of the evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We are
not persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner erred.
Appellants argue Perlman does not teach or suggest a system used
with a virtual network or multiple multicast trees. Br. 8-9. Accordingly,
Appellants argue Perlman does not teach or suggest the forwarding module
operable to "determine for the multicast packet ... "and "determine for a
copy ... " as recited in claim 1. Id.
In the Non-Final Rejection, the Examiner finds Perlman teaches all of
the limitations of the forwarding module recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act.
3--4. In the Answer, the Examiner finds the combination of Perlman and
3
Appeal2015-002057
Application 13/030,806
Banerjee teach and suggest the limitations of the forwarding module. Ans.
4---6. Specifically, the Examiner finds Banerjee teaches and suggests the
specific limitations Appellants argue Perlman does not teach or suggest.
Ans. 4---6, 8-10.2
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCP A 1981 ). Because Appellants address the references individually
and do not address the reasoning relied on by the Examiner (Ans. 4---6, 8-10)
and, thus, does not adequately address the rejection on appeal, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred.
Appellants also argue Banerjee does not teach or suggest an internal
multicast group identifier that is used only within the switch. Br. 9-11.
Instead, Appellants argue the tree-ID used in Banerjee is distributed across
the entire network:
Furthermore, Banerjee explicitly disclose that "[once] a
tree-ID is selected and placed into the packet header, the sub
2 We note the Examiner states that Perlman teaches "determining for a copy
of the multicast packet one or more output ports associated with a second
multicast tree corresponding to a second virtual network." Ans. 9. We
further note the Examiner cites to Banerjee and previously identified
Banerjee as teaching that limitation. Compare Ans. 9, with Ans. 5---6. We
treat the use of Perlman instead of Banerjee on page 9 of the Answer as a
typographical error.
4
Appeal2015-002057
Application 13/030,806
sequent switches in the path to the receivers do not modify the
tree-ID, but instead do their lookups for the tree-ID and forward
on the same tree (multicast graph)" (see Banerjee, par. [0058]).
Since the tree-ID is placed in a packet and remains unchanged,
the usage of the tree-ID is distributed across the network.
Thus, Banerjee is merely directed to a system that determines a
next-hop inter/ ace based on a tree-ID, which is consistent
across a network. Appellant respectfully points out that the
usage of a tree-ID in Banerjee is not internal to a switch. Thus,
the tree-ID in Banerjee is not an internal multicast group
identifier, the usage of which is internal to a switch.
Br. 10 (italics omitted, bold-italics added).
The Examiner finds Banerjee teaches and suggests an internal
multicast group identifier as recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing
Banerjee i-fi-155-58). Additionally, the Examiner concludes the claim is
broad in scope and Appellants have "not argued any narrower interpretation
of the claim limitations, nor amended the claims significantly enough to
construe a narrower meaning to the limitations." Ans. 10.
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In doing so, we will
not read limitations from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regardless of the general contentions
and imputed intended meanings articulated by Appellants in the Appeal
Brief, "[i]t is the claims that measure the invention." See SRI Int 'l v.
Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en
bane) (citations omitted).
5
Appeal2015-002057
Application 13/030,806
Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important
not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the
claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the
written description may not be read into a claim when the claim
language is broader than the embodiment.
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). "[A]lthough the specification often describes very
specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against
confining the claims to those embodiments .... [C]laims may embrace
'different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the
specification."' Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en bane) (citations omitted).
Claim 1 recites that the "usage of internal multicast group identifier is
internal to the switch." App. Br. 14 (Claims App'x). Although the claim
requires that the multicast group identifier to be used within the switch, there
is nothing in the claim that precludes it from also being used external to the
switch. Because Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claims, they are unpersuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982).
Finally, Appellants contend the Examiner "must not change the
principle of operation of a reference" when making out of prima facie
obviousness rejection. Br. 11. Appellants argue that the combination of the
two references will not produce the invention recited in claim 1. Br. 12.
"The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
6
Appeal2015-002057
Application 13/030,806
reference." Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Instead, the relevant issue is "what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art." Id. "Combining the teachings of references does
not involve an ability to combine their specific structures." In re Nievelt,
482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Because Appellants focus on the bodily
incorporation of the references and not the combined teachings as found by
the Examiner, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner erred.
According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claims 8 and 15, which are argued on the same
grounds, and claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20, and 21, which are
not argued separately.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1--4, 6-11, 13-18, 20, and 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