Nicira, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 27, 2020

2019002978 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2020)

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.
15/196,492 06/29/2016 Radha Popuri N273.02 5869
109858 7590 10/27/2020
ADELI LLP
P.O. Box 516
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
EXAMINER
TRAN, ELLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2020 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 RADHA POPURI, IGOR GANICHEV, SHADAB SHAH, and
KAUSHAL BANSAL
___________________

Appeal 2019-002978
Application 15/196,492
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all of the pending
claims.2 Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed June 29, 2016 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Apr. 24, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Oct. 29, 2018 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Dec. 31, 2018
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Feb. 28, 2019.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies VMware, Inc. and Nicira, Inc. as
the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002978
Application 15/196,492

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method for managing firewall configuration software by fast ordering
firewall sections and rules assigned to a plurality of tenants to thereby
provide firewall protection to the tenants. Spec. ¶¶ 5, 48, 52. Figure 10 is
discussed and reproduced below:

Figure 10 illustrates software defined data center (100) including a network
virtualization platform providing firewall services in sections (920–931),
each containing a set of rules associated with a tenant, wherein the sections
are sorted according to their assigned priority values. Spec. ¶¶ 5, 6, 62–72,
96, 97.
Appeal 2019-002978
Application 15/196,492

3
As depicted in Figure 10 above, upon receiving a request to insert a
new section into the firewall configuration at a specified priority relative to
other sections, network manager (105) assigns a priority number reflecting
the specified ordered position to the newly-inserted section. Id. ¶¶ 91–119.
Subsequently, network manager (105) relabels the sections from the first
priority numbers to a second priority numbers to account for the newly
inserted section. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
A method for managing firewall configuration of a software
defined data center that provide computing and networking resources
to a plurality of tenants, the method comprising:
storing a firewall configuration comprising a plurality of
sections, each section comprising a set of firewall rules, each section
assigned a different priority number, wherein the plurality of
sections are ordered according to the assigned priority numbers of the
individual sections;
receiving a plurality of requests, each request for inserting a
new section to the firewall configuration at a specified ordered
position relative to other sections;
for each new section being inserted, assigning a priority number
that reflects the specified ordered position of the new section; and
based on the assignment of priority numbers, re-labeling a set
of sections from a first set of priority numbers to a second, different
set of priority numbers in order to make priority numbers available
for assignment to subsequently inserted sections.

Appeal Br. 29 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2019-002978
Application 15/196,492

4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Number Publ’d/Issued
Ahn  US 2011/0055916 A1  Mar. 3, 2011 
Pernicha US 2016/0191466 A1 Jun. 30, 2016

IV. REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ahn and Pernicha. Final Act.
10–17.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in,
pages 8–27 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–5. We are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act.
2–18; Ans. 3–24. However, we highlight and address specific arguments
and findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues, inter alia, that
the proposed combination of Ahn and Pernicha is a piecemeal and hindsight
proposition that does not teach or suggest relabeling a set of firewall sections
from a first set of priority numbers to a second set of priority numbers to
thereby make priority numbers available for assignment to subsequently
inserted sections. Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellant

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-002978
Application 15/196,492

5
argues that Ahn’s disclosure of analyzing an existing set of firewall rules to
identify and define rules that can be reordered without affecting the
application of firewall policy does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitations. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Ahn ¶¶ 6, 18, 27). According to
Appellant, Ahn discloses identifying and defining the sections after the rules
are added to the firewall policy, and sorted to more efficiently apply the
firewall rules. Id. Further, Applicant argues that Pernicha’s disclosure of
applying newly added firewall rules to an existing firewall policy for
configuring the firewall does not cure the noted deficiencies in Ahn. Id. at
12–13 (citing Pernicha ¶¶ 42–44). According to Appellant, although
Pernicha’s newly added rules update the sets of firewall rules by placing
them in their respective positions to thereby optimize the firewall
configuration, they do not change the firewall policy. Id. at 13 (citing
Pernicha ¶¶ 42–444). Appellant reiterates similar arguments for
patentability of independent claim 11. Id. at 14–20.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. Ahn discloses a subset of rules in an ordered set of firewall packets
filtering rules that define a firewall policy containing disjoint rules, whose
order can be changed without changing the integrity of the firewall policy.
Ahn ¶¶ 7, 18. Ahn discloses that each rule set can be partitioned into a list
of ordered groups. Id. ¶ 39. Further, Pernicha discloses a method and
system for dynamically optimizing rule-based security policies, whereupon
receiving a request by a network security management device to add a new
traffic flow policy rule to an existing policy rule, an updated policy rule is
formed to incorporate the new traffic flow policy based on determined
dependencies. Pernicha ¶¶10, 30, 31. In particular, Pernicha discloses
Appeal 2019-002978
Application 15/196,492

6
reordering a second subset of policy rules having identifiers according to
their assigned weights and priorities to update the order of the rules thereby
optimizing the updated set of policy rules so as to configure the firewall. Id.
¶¶ 33, 42, 69–75.
As an initial matter, we note it is undisputed that the proposed
combination of Ahn and Pernicha teaches a firewall having a plurality of
configuration rules with subsets thereof being assigned to individual sections
of the firewall according to predetermined priorities. It is further undisputed
that Pernicha plainly teaches adding or inserting new rules to an existing
policy, and subsequently reordering the rules. Therefore, the dispute before
us turns on whether Pernicha’s disclosure of adding/inserting new rules to
the policy, and subsequently reordering the rules teaches the disputed
limitations. We answer this inquiry in the affirmative. As noted above,
Pernicha discloses reordering a subset of policy rules based on weights and
priorities assigned to the rules in respective sections of the firewall in
response to having added/inserted new rules to the policy. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Pernicha’s disclosed reordering of rules is
tantamount to relabeling sections into which the updated rules are assigned,
and thereby teaches or at least suggests relabeling the sections from a first
subset of rules to a second subset of rules so as to accommodate into the
sections the newly added/inserted rules. Ans. 11–16 (citing Pernicha ¶¶ 7,
18–21, 30–36, 61, 62, 69–73). On this record, we also agree with the
Examiner that the proposed combination of Ahn and Pernicha would
predictably result in relabeling a set of existing rules in firewall sections
from a first set of priority numbers to a second set of priority numbers, in
response to adding/inserting rules to the existing set of rules to thereby make
Appeal 2019-002978
Application 15/196,492

7
priority numbers available for assignment to subsequently inserted sections.
Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1
and 11 over the combination of Ahn and Pernicha.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2–10 and 12–20, Appellant has not
presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially the
same arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of claims
1 and 11. As such, claims 2–10 and 12–20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1–20.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Ahn,
Pernicha
1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED