Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 31, 201913678522 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/678,522 109858 7590 ADELILLP 11859 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 408 11/15/2012 06/04/2019 Los Angeles, CA 90025 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ronghua Zhang 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. N023.02 (NCRA.P0118) 8678 EXAMINER COONEY, ADAM A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2019 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): ipadmin@vmware.com mail@adelillp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RONGHUA ZHANG, TEEMU KOPONEN, P ANKAJ THAKKAR, and MARTIN CASADO Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, 10-12, 14--18, and 21-26. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 3 1 Appellants identify Nicira, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Claims 5, 9, and 13 have been cancelled, and pending claims 19 and 20 are not before us on appeal as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 19 and 20 was withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer. (Ans. 21.) 3 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed November 15, 2012, the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed May 18, 2017, the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed December 18, 2017, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 11, 2018, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 11,2018. Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to methods and controller applications for "configuring several middlebox instances ... [that] implement a middle box in a distributed manner in several hosts" for "load balancing and destination network address translation." (Abstract; Title (capitalization altered).) In one implementation, Appellants' invention uses a controller to "configure[] a first middlebox instance to obtain status of a set of servers and disseminate the obtained status to a second middlebox instance" and "configure[] the second middlebox instance to use the status to select a server from the set of servers." (Abstract.) Claims 1, 6, 10, and 14 are independent. Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a controller application of a network control system for configuring a logical middlebox in a distributed manner across a plurality of physical machines, the logical middle box part of a logical network that logically connects a plurality of machines, the controller application comprising sets of instructions for: configuring a first middlebox instance, operating in a first physical machine, to (i) implement the logical middlebox by selecting a destination machine from a set of machines for packets sent from a first source also operating on the first physical machine and that have a destination address of the set of machines, (ii) obtain status data for the set of machines of the plurality of machines connected to the logical network, and (iii) disseminate the obtained status data to at least a second middlebox instance operating in a second physical machine; and configuring the second middlebox instance to implement the logical middlebox by using the status data received from the first middlebox instance to select a destination machine from the same set of machines for packets sent from a second source 2 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 also operating on the second physical machine and that have the destination address of the same set of machines. 10. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a controller application of a network control system for configuring a logical middlebox in a distributed manner across a plurality of physical machines, the logical middle box part of a logical network that logically connects a plurality of machines, the controller application comprising sets of instructions for: configuring a plurality of middle box instances, each operating in a different one of the physical machines, to (i) receive a packet directed to a set of servers providing a same service, (ii) select a server from the set of servers to which to send the packet, (iii) create a set of flow entries, using a network address of the selected server, that specify to send subsequent packets having similar characteristics to the received packet to the selected server, and (iv) provide the created set of flow entries to a corresponding managed forwarding element operating in the physical machine with the middlebox instance; and configuring managed forwarding elements in the plurality of physical machines to forward subsequent packets based on the set of flow entries created by the corresponding middlebox instance without the corresponding middlebox instance processing the subsequent packets. (App. Br. 29--34 (Claims App'x).) REJECTI0NS 4 & REFERENCES (1) Claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14--18, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kondamuru (US 4 Claims 19 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kondamuru, Chao, and McGuire et al. (US 2008/0049621 Al, published Feb. 28, 2008, "McGuire"). (Final Act. 25-27 .) However, the§ I03(a) rejection of claims 19 and 20 was withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer, and is no longer pending on appeal. (Ans. 21.) 3 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 2010/0131638 Al, published May 27, 2010) and Chao et al. (US 2013/0003735 Al, published Jan. 3, 2013, "Chao"). (Final Act. 8-24.) (2) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kondamuru, Chao, and Ikeda (US 2003/0009559 Al, published Jan. 9, 2003). (Final Act. 24--25.) ANALYSIS Claims 1-4, 6-8, 21, 22, 25, and 26 With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend "Kondamuru and Chao do not disclose or suggest a controller application that configures the first and second middlebox instances" operating in first or second physical machines to implement a logical middlebox by "selecting a destination machine from a set of machines for packets sent from a first [ or second] source also operating on the first [ or second] physical machine and that have a destination address of the set of machines," as claimed. (App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2--4.) Particularly, Appellants argue Chao's "middleboxes themselves do not actually operate on physical machines with the sources of packets (i.e., these middleboxes are not described as being situated at the host)" and "none of these middleboxes [ of Chao] are actually the destination of the packet, nor do they have the destination address of the packet." (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3.) Appellants also argue the claimed "selection of a destination machine from a set of machines (by the first middlebox instance or by the second middle box instance) is not addressed at all" by the Examiner. (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3.) Appellants additionally assert Chao does not teach the claimed "selection" ( of a destination machine) because Chao's "middle boxes are not a set of machines with the destination address 4 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 of the packet"; rather, "forwarding information is inserted into the packet by the agent in Chao ... [ which agent] selects the middle boxes that the packet will traverse." (Reply Br. 4 (citing Chao ,r 22).) Appellants further argue the Examiner's combination of Kondamuru and Chao lacks articulated reasoning and relies on impermissible hindsight. (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4.) We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own. Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Chao's forwarding of packets from middlebox to middlebox teaches the claimed "selecting a destination machine" by "a first middlebox instance, operating in a first physical machine" and "a second middlebox instance operating in a second physical machine" as claimed. (Ans. 23-24 (citing Chao ,r 23); Final Act. 10-11 (citing Chao ,r,r 22, 36-41, 51, 76).) Particularly, Chao teaches middlebox instances 145 operating in different physical machines (machines labeled "MIDDLE BOX A" "MIDDLE BOX B" "MIDDLE BOX C" "MIDDLE ' ' ' BOX D," and "MIDDLE BOX E" in Chao's Figure 1). (See Chao ,r,r 36-41, Fig. 1; Ans. 23-24.) Chao's first middlebox instance ( operating in a first physical machine "MIDDLE BOX A") is configured to select a destination machine (a second physical machine "MIDDLE BOX B" holding the next middlebox instance to be traversed) for packets sent from a first source also operating on the first physical machine ("MIDDLE BOX A"), the packets having a destination address of the set of machines, as required by claim 1. (See Chao ,r,r 22-23, 36-41, 49 (describing "a data packet having a payload and a packet header including an Ethernet header identifying a source address and destination address"), 51, Figs. 1 and 3A-3B (described by Chao's paragraph 51); Ans. 5 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 23-24; Final Act. 10-11.) For example, Chao's paragraph 50 explains that "the current middlebox" ( a first middle box instance) "obtain[ s ], using the layer-2 forwarding information, a MAC address of the next middlebox in sequence to be traversed ... [ and] updat[ es] the destination address in the modified Ethernet header of the data packet to the MAC address of the next middlebox," thereby selecting a destination machine (the machine of the next middle box) for packets sent from a first source (the machine of the current/first middlebox) as required by claim 1. (See Chao ,r 50.) Appellants argue Chao's "middleboxes themselves do not actually operate on physical machines with the sources of packets (i.e., these middleboxes are not described as being situated at the host)" (see App. Br. 8-9); however, claim 1 does not require the "first source" and the "second source" of the packets to be the packets' original source (e.g., to be Chao's source host in Figure 1 ). Thus, the broadly claimed "first source" and "second source" do not preclude intermediate sources of the packets-such as Chao's sequence of middlebox instances sending the packets from one middlebox instance to the next. (Ans. 23-24.) 5 Appellants further argue "none of these middle boxes [in Chao] are actually the destination of the packet, nor do they have the destination address of the packet," and Chao's "middleboxes are not a set of machines with the destination address of the packet." (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4.) 5 Appellants' Specification similarly describes intermediate packet sources that include switches (Managed Switching Elements (MS Es) 2 and 4, see Spec. Figure 2) and middlebox instances (instances 135, 140, 145, see Spec. Figures 2 and 3) traversed by a packet originating at Client VMl in Host 2, on its way to Server VMl in Host 4. (See Spec. 10: 10-15, 10:26-11 :34, 13:19-32, Figs. 2-3.) 6 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 Appellants' arguments are, again, not supported by corresponding language in claim 1. Claim 1 does not require middleboxes to have the destination address of the packet; rather, claim 1 recites "packets ... that have a destination address of the set of machines" and "packets ... that have the destination address of the same set of machines." Such is disclosed by Chao's packets that have a destination address encoded in the packet header. (See Chao ,r,r 49--51.) Appellants' argument that "none of the[] middle boxes [in Chao] are actually the destination of the packet" (see App. Br. 9) is similarly unpersuasive because claim 1 does not preclude the physical machines holding middlebox instances from being the claimed "destination machines." That is, claim 1 does not exclude intermediate destinations (such as middleboxes' physical machines) from the claimed "destination machines." We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner's combination of Kondamuru and Chao lacks articulated reasoning and relies on impermissible hindsight. (See App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 4.) The Examiner has found each of the elements of the claimed invention and provided an articulated reasoning to modify those elements in the combination. (Final Act. 12; see also Final Act. 9--11; Ans. 24--25.) Moreover, the Examiner has articulated reasons to combine the prior art teachings from the references and provided a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, i.e., to: incorporate[] the feature of determining a sequence of middle boxes, as taught by Chao, into the system of Kondamuru in order to provide the benefit of scalability by improving support of load balancing by a global server load balancing (GSLB [ described by Kondamuru]) appliance in a GSLB hierarchy of 7 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 appliances capable of forwarding and switching operation management. (Final Act. 12.) Appellants generally disagree without specifically addressing the Examiner's rationale to combine the teachings of the two references. (See App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4.) Merely alleging that the references fail to support an obviousness rejection is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013) ("The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.") Additionally, Appellants' argument that "the cited portions of Chao do not actually relate to any particular type of middlebox" (see App. Br. 10) is contradicted by Chao's paragraphs 3 6-41, 51, and 7 6, which describe "middle boxes ... includ[ing] a plurality of instances of a middlebox implemented in software" for providing a "non-forwarding network service" including "traffic monitoring, traffic engineering, traffic policing, deep packet inspection (DPI), load balancing, network and system security enforcements such as firewall, network address translation, signature management for intrusion detection systems, and multimedia buffer management." (See Chao ,r,r 41, 51, 76.) Appellants' Specification similarly describes "middleboxes [that] perform data processing other than forwarding the data ( e.g., network address translation, load balance, firewall, intrusion detection and prevention, wide area network optimization, etc.)." (See Spec. 6:30-34.) Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. 8 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 With respect to independent claim 6, Appellants reiterate the same arguments presented against claim 1. (App. Br. 11-14.) For the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 6. No separate arguments for patentability are presented for dependent claims 2--4, 7, 8, 21, 22, 25, and 26. (See App. Br. 24.) Accordingly, for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1 and 6, we sustain the rejections of these dependent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 24 With respect to dependent claim 24, Appellants contend Chao does not teach the claimed distributing data records defining a configuration for a logical middlebox because Chao's ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) resolutions and forwarding tables received from a centralized controller "are not middlebox configuration data" and are "not relevant to the middlebox functions of the middleboxes in Chao." (App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 15.) Appellants further argue Chao's ARP servers "do not directly manage middlebox instances" as required by claim 24. (Reply Br. 15.) Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Claim 24 does not specify what the term "directly" encompasses, and Appellants do not explain why Chao's centralized controller managing middlebox instances via ARP servers would not teach "directly manag[ing] the first middlebox instance" and "directly manag[ing] the second middlebox" as claimed. Additionally, Appellants' argument that "the ARP resolution and forwarding table information is [sic] not relevant to the middlebox functions of the middleboxes in Chao" (see Reply Br. 15) is contradicted by Chao's 9 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 paragraphs 36 and 40. (See Chao ,r,r 36, 40; Ans. 31.) In addition, although Appellants argue Chao does not teach the claimed "middlebox configuration data" (see App. Br. 26), Appellants do not explain why data distributed from Chao's centralized controller to middle boxes would not teach the claimed pluralities of "data records defining a configuration for the logical middlebox." (See Chao ,r,r 36-41.) We agree with the Examiner's findings that Chao distributes data records defining a configuration for a logical middlebox as claimed because Chao's "[ m ]iddlebox instances are configured using multiple ARP servers that receive information about hosts, agents and middleboxes from a centralized controller," the "information includ[ing] ARP resolution and forwarding table, along with any updates for the forwarding table that is used to provision the middlebox instances." (Ans. 31 (citing Chao ,r,r 36- 41).) Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 24. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24. Claims 10-12 and 23 Independent claim 10 recites, inter alia: configuring a plurality of middlebox instances, each operating in a different one of the physical machines, to ... (iii) create a set of flow entries, using a network address of the selected server, that specify to send subsequent packets having similar characteristics to the received packet to the selected server, and (iv) provide the created set of flow entries to a corresponding managed forwarding element operating in the physical machine with the middlebox instance; and 10 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 configuring managed forwarding elements in the plurality of physical machines to forward subsequent packets based on the set of flow entries created by the corresponding middlebox instance without the corresponding middlebox instance processing the subsequent packets. (App. Br. 31 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added).) Claim 10 therefore configures each of multiple middlebox instances ( each instance in a different physical machine) to create flow entries that are provided to a managed forwarding element (e.g., a network switch, see Spec. 6:9--16 and 19-21) in the physical machine with the middlebox instance, and further configures the physical machines ' switches to forward subsequent packets based on the provided flow entries without the physical machines ' middlebox instances processing those subsequent packets. The Examiner, among other things, finds Kondamuru's policies teach flow entries created by middlebox instances (network appliances 200, 205). (Final Act. 14 (citing Kondamuru ,r,r 47--48, 83, 92, 104, 106, 109--110, Fig. 1 C).) The Examiner acknowledges "Kondamuru does not explicitly disclose forward[ing] subsequent packets ... without the corresponding middlebox instance processing the subsequent packets" as claimed, but asserts Chao discloses this claim limitation. (Final Act. 15.) Particularly, the Examiner finds Chao's "data packets from different data flows tend to have different headers, and hence different hash values, [so] they are distributed to different instance of the middle box" such that "the subsequent packet, i.e. the packet that arrives, is not processed but is forwarded to the other middlebox instance based on the data flow and hash value" and "[t]herefore, the packet is forwarded without being processed in order to implement load balancing." (Ans. 27 (citing Chao ,r,r 68---69, 71, 73); Final Act. 15.) We do not agree. 11 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 We agree with Appellants' arguments that Chao, alone or in combination with Kondamuru, fails to teach or suggest "configuring managed forwarding elements in the plurality of physical machines to forward subsequent packets based on the set of flow entries created by the corresponding middlebox instance without the corresponding middlebox instance processing the subsequent packets" as recited in claim 10. (App. Br. 18, 31 (Claim 10) (emphasis added).) Contrary to claim 10, Chao forwards packets-based on directional flow data specifying middlebox types for the packets' hash values-to corresponding middlebox instances for processing those packets. (See Chao ,r 68 ("when the data packet arrives at a particular second type middlebox ... the data packet may be forwarded to one of the N middle box instances of fourth type middle box ... based on the hash value" to perform "load balancing among the instances of the middle boxes" using "a mapping of hash values to middlebox types").) That is, the "middle box that receives the packet [in Chao] will perform its processing as normal, then perform the load balancing to select the instance for the next middlebox type." (App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 9-10.) Thus, Chao does not disclose forwarding packets "without the corresponding middlebox instance processing the subsequent packets" as claimed. (App. Br. 17-18.) As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the rejection of independent claim 10, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 10. Because we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 10, we also reverse the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 11, 12, and 23, dependent therefrom. Because the above-discussed issue is dispositive as to the obviousness rejections of all claims dependent from claim 10, we do not 12 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 reach additional issues raised by Appellants' arguments as to the§ I03(a) rejection of dependent claim 11. (App. Br. 24--25.) Claims 14-18 Independent claim 14 is directed to "configuring a load balancer in a distributed manner across a plurality of host machines" and recites, inter alia, a "controller comprising sets of instructions for" receiving configuration data for the load balancer that specifies rules for selecting a server from a set of servers for packets, having a destination address corresponding to the set of servers, that are received at instances of the load balancer; identifying a plurality of host machines, on at least a subset of which machines of the plurality of machines connected by the logical network operate, on which to implement the load balancer; identifying a set of additional controllers in the network control system that manage the identified host machines on which to implement the load balancer; and distributing the configuration data for the load balancer to the identified set of additional controllers in order for the additional controllers to provide the configuration data to middlebox instances on the host machines. (App. Br. 32 (Claims App'x).) The Examiner finds Kondamuru's policies teach the claimed distributed "configuration data for the load balancer," and the policy engines on network appliances 200 and WAN (wide area network) optimization device 205 teach the claimed "set of additional controllers in the network control system that manage the identified host machines on which to implement the load balancer." (Final Act. 1 7-18 ( citing Kondamuru ,r,r 44, 46, 55, 91-92, 101, 109-110, 136, 192, Fig. IC).) The Examiner further 13 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 finds Chao's ARP servers (130, 135, see Chao Fig. 1) teach the claimed set of "additional controllers," and Chao's "agents [125] operat[e] on multiple hosts, and ... forward the data packets to the appropriate middlebox" thereby "identifying a plurality of host machines, on at least a subset of which machines (hosts) of the plurality of machines (hosts) connected by the logical network ... , on which to implement the load balancer" as claimed. (Final Act. 18 (citing Chao ,r,r 36-41, 76); see also Chao Fig. 1.) We do not agree. We agree with Appellants' arguments that Kondamuru and Chao, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the claimed "identifying a plurality of host machines," "identifying a set of additional controllers," and "distributing the configuration data." (App. Br. 20-23; Reply Br. 11-13.) For example, Chao does not teach "identifying a set of additional controllers in the network control system that manage the identified host machines on which to implement the load balancer," rather, Chao teaches one centralized controller to which "new agents, middle boxes and hosts [that] join the network ... report." (See Chao ,r 40; App. Br. 23.) As Appellants further explain, Chao's ARP servers do not correspond to the claimed "additional controllers" because the "ARP servers do not manage host machines" and are not controllers. (Reply Br. 13; App. Br. 23; see Chao ,r 40.) Additionally, Chao does not disclose that its centralized controller, ARP servers, and agents are identified in order to implement the load balancer as middlebox instances on host machines, as recited in claim 14. In Chao, the load balancer and middlebox instances have already been implemented on host machines (see Chao Fig. 1 ): 14 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 Upon booting up, the first ARP server 130 and the second ARP server 135 register with a centralized controller (not shown) in the network 140 and an initial list of agents, hosts and middleboxes is provided to the.first ARP server 130 and/or the second ARP server 13 5 by the centralized controller. As new agents, middle boxes and hosts join the network 140 and report to the centralized controller, the new entries are pushed to the first ARP server 130, and/or the second ARP server 135. In addition, the first ARP server 130, and/or the second ARP server 135 may maintain MAC addresses l?f agents and middle boxes . . . . The agents (such as agent 115, agent 120, and agent 125) and middle boxes (such as set l?f middleboxes 145) obtain a list l?f ARP servers in the network during their initial registration with the centralized controller. (See Chao ,r 40 (emphases added).) In other words, Chao discloses a finalized setup of a load balancer's middlebox instances, but does not disclose the particular steps used for setting up the load balancer's middlebox instances across host machines as claim 14 recites. (App. Br. 20- 22; Reply Br. 11.) Kondamuru does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Chao, as Kondamuru does not teach or suggest the claimed "identifying a plurality of host machines, on at least a subset of which machines of the plurality of machines connected by the logical network operate, on which to implement the load balancer." (See Final Act. 18 (acknowledging Kondamuru's deficiency).) As Appellants further explain, Kondamuru's policy engines ( on network appliances and WAN optimization device) do not teach the claimed controllers because (i) a "WAN optimization controller performs WAN optimization and acceleration, and is unrelated to the controller recited in claim 14" and "Kondamuru ... makes no mention of one such controller [(WAN optimization controller)] identifying others [(additional controllers)]" (Reply Br. 12; App. Br. 22), and (ii) "Kondamuru 15 Appeal2018-007334 Application 13/678,522 ... does not show one [network appliance's] policy engine identifying other [network appliances'] policy engines and distributing configuration data for the other appliance to that policy engine[, i]nstead, the policy engines are user-configured" (App. Br. 22 (citing Kondamuru ,r 92)). As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the rejection of independent claim 14, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 14. Because we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 14, we also reverse the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 15-18, dependent therefrom. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-8, 21, 22, and 24--26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-12, 14--18, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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-IN-PART 16 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation