Arista Networks, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2021

2020003603 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021)

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.
15/867,282 01/10/2018 Douglas Alan Gourlay 170383-002301US 1399
148194 7590 09/29/2021
Arista/CHWWA
1200 Smith St., 14th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
THAI, CAMQUYEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2021 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):
Dossa.IP@chamberlainlaw.com
Jeff.Guinn@chamberlainlaw.com
Patents@chamberlainlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOUGLAS ALAN GOURLAY, ANDRE HENRI JOSEPH PECH,
and BENOIT SIGOURE
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 21–40 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act.
1–2; Appeal Br. 15–18.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Arista
Networks, Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Jan. 10, 2018
(claiming benefit of US 14/225,886, filed Mar. 26, 2014); and Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”), filed Aug. 28, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally relates
to network topology enforcement (Title, Spec. p. 1) and, more particularly,
to configuring data center components. Spec. ¶ 1. Specifically, Appellant’s
claims recite switches and computer-readable media for configuring a
network of computer components where a computer-readable medium
comprises instructions to be executed by a processor in order to perform a
method (process). The network includes at least two switches (a first switch
associated with a first role and a second switch associated with a second
role). The method receives information at a first port of the first switch from
the connected second switch, where the information includes the second role
associated with the second switch. The method determines (makes a first
determination) whether a number of connections between the first switch
and the second switch exceeds a predetermined number of proposed
connections specified by the network topology policy using the first role, the
second role, and a network topology policy. If the determination is made
that the number of proposed connections has been exceeded, the method
then sends an alert, which specifies that the first switch is improperly
connected to the second switch, to a recipient. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–4; Abstract.
Claim 21 (directed to a computer-readable medium), claim 28 (directed to a
switch), claim 35 (directed to a computer-readable medium), and claim 38
(directed to a switch) are independent. Claim 21, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Mar. 29, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”),
mailed Dec. 30, 2019.
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

3
21. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising
instructions, which when executed by a processor perform a
method, the method comprising:
receiving, at a first port on a first switch, a second role
associated with a second switch, wherein the second switch is
connected to the first switch using the first port, wherein the first
switch is associated with a first role;
making a first determination, using the first role, the
second role, and a network topology policy, that a number of
actual connections between the first switch and the second switch
exceeds a number of proposed connections between the first
switch and the second switch, wherein the network topology
policy specifies the number of proposed connections between the
first switch and the second switch; and
sending, in response to the first determination, an alert to
an alert recipient, wherein the alert specifies that the first switch
is improperly connected to the second switch.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Genetti et al.
(“Genetti”)
US 8,532,086 B1 Sept. 10, 2013
Gourlay et al.
(“Gourlay”)
US 9,900,217 B2 Feb. 20, 2018
Strutt US 2009/0089462 A1 Apr. 2, 2009
Ojha et al. (“Ojha”) US 2013/0077473 A1 Mar. 28, 2013
Jain et al. (“Jain”) US 2014/0105029 A1 Apr. 17, 2014
Yang et al. (“Yang”) US 2014/0177640 A1 June 26, 2014
Smith et al. (“Smith”) US 2015/0016277 A1 Jan. 15, 2015

Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

4
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 21, 23–26, 28, and 31–33 under
the non-statutory ground of obviousness-type double patenting over U.S.
Patent No. 9,900,217 B2 (Gourlay). See Final Act. 5–9.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 21–26 and 28–33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Jain, Smith, and Strutt. See Final Act. 10–
18.
3. The Examiner rejects claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jain, Smith, Strutt, and Genetti. See Final Act. 18–19.
4. The Examiner rejects claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jain, Smith, Strutt, and Ojha. See Final Act. 19–20.
5. The Examiner rejects claims 35–40 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Jain, Smith, and Yang. See Final Act. 20–
24.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 21–26 and 28–33 as a group based on claim
21 and does not separately argue independent claim 28 or dependent claims
22–26 and 29–33. See Appeal Br. 7, 10–18. Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 27 and 34. See Appeal Br. 7. Appellant

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013),
this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4 Appellant does not mention, much less address, the Examiner’s double
patenting rejection in their Appeal Brief. Appellant did not file a Reply
Brief. Accordingly, the Examiner’s double patenting rejection is
uncontested, and we summarily affirm the rejection.
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

5
argues claims 35–40 as a group based on claim 35 and does not separately
argue independent claim 38 or dependent claims 36, 37, 39, and 40. See
Appeal Br. 7. We select independent claim 21 as representative of
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 22–26 and 28–33, and
independent claim 35 as representative of Appellant’s arguments with
respect to claims 36–40.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 21–26 and 28–33
The Examiner rejects independent claim 21 as being obvious in view
of Jain, Smith, and Strutt. See Final Act. 11–15; Ans. 3–7. Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Jain teaches each feature of claim 21, including
validating connections (determining a connection error) based on component
roles and a network topology policy, with the exception of the network
topology policy specifying the number of proposed connections. See Final
Act. 11–13; Ans. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Smith to teach validating
connections (determining connection errors) using a network topology
policy that specifies the number of proposed connections between switches.
See Final Act. 13–14; Ans. 4–5. The Examiner further relies on Strutt to
teach detecting a connection error (determining connection errors) when the
number of actual connections between switches exceeds the number of
proposed connections between those switches. See Final Act. 14–15; Ans.
5–7 (citing Strutt ¶¶ 5, 41, 42, 46, 65).
Appellant contends that Jain, Smith, and Strutt do not teach certain
disputed features of claim 21. See Appeal Br. 7–11. Specifically, Appellant
contends, inter alia, that Strutt does not teach the determination step—
Strutt merely discloses that a given storage device or storage
volume may have an aggregate maximum number of connections
to it and that such information may be included in policy rules[,
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

6
but] . . . Strutt fails to disclose that a first role, a second role, and
a network topology are used to make any determination, much
less a determination that the number of connections between two
specific network devices having defined roles exceeds a limit of
a proposed quantity of such connections defined by a network
topology.
Appeal Br. 10. See Appeal Br. 8–11.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 11–15)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 3–7) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the
following analysis for emphasis.
Appellant apparently misconstrued the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant states that:
the only portion of the independent claim 21 that the Examiner
is even attempting to convey is disclosed by Strutt is the claim
language relating to “exceeds a number of proposed
connections”. Even assuming arguendo that such a contention
is valid, Appellant respectfully asserts that such a disclosure still
fails to disclose making a determination based on both a network
topology and the respective roles of two switches whether a
number of proposed connections have been exceeded.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant is correct that the Examiner relied on Strutt solely
for the teaching of a determination that a number of network connections
between components specified in a network topology policy has been
exceeded. See Final Act. 14. Appellant, however, fails to apprehend that
the Examiner relied on a combination of Jain and Smith to teach determining
a network configuration connection error based on network component roles
and a network topology policy that specifies the number of proposed
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

7
connections between switches in the network. See Final Act. 11–14; Ans. 4–
5.
As pointed out by the Examiner, Strutt describes determining a
connection error when the number of configured connections specified in a
topology policy are exceeded by the actual connections between network
components. See Final Act. 14; Ans. 5–7; Strutt ¶¶ 5, 41, 42, 46, 47, 65.
Strutt explains that “the determination component” “identif[ies] the relevant
configuration data for” the network component, and makes “a further
determination” “as to whether any of the port candidates have reached their”
maximum number of network connections “by comparing the . . . device’s
configuration data with its corresponding policy rule. If the determination is
positive, the ports that . . . exceed their maximum . . . count are excluded.”
Strutt ¶ 65. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Strutt teaches
determining that “a number of actual connections between” network
components (i.e., a first switch and a second switch) “exceeds a number of
proposed connections between the” network components, “wherein the
network topology policy specifies the number of proposed connections”
(claim 21) (Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.)).
Moreover, Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings with
respect to combination of Jain and Smith. See Appeal Br. 8–10; Ans. 4–5.
The Examiner determined that the combination of Jain, Smith, and Strutt
would have taught the disputed determination feature. See Final Act. 11–15;
Ans. 3–7.
One cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references
individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

8
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). This guidance is applicable here.
As previously discussed, Appellant does not dispute in detail the Examiner’s
findings with respect to Jain or Smith, or that the combination of Jain,
Smith, and Strutt describe network switches, their respective roles, or
making a determination of a network configuration error based on a the roles
and a network topology policy specifying a number of connections (as
taught by Jain and Smith). Thus, Strutt (in combination with Jain and
Smith) at least suggests determining a network configuration error when the
number of actual connections between switches exceeds the number of
proposed connections between those switches.
Additionally, although a Reply Brief is not required, Appellant did not
file a Reply Brief and failed to address the Examiner’s clarified findings and
additional discussion of Jain, Smith, and Strutt, as well as the disputed
limitations of claim 21, or otherwise rebut the findings and responsive
arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. See Ans. 3–7.
Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Appellant’s
contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding that
Strutt (in combination with Jain and Smith) teaches the disputed address
determination step.
Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s
contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21
as obvious in view of Jain, Smith, and Strutt. Independent claim 28 includes
limitations of commensurate scope. Appellant did not separately argue with
particularity independent claim 28 and dependent claims 22–26 and 29–33
(supra). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 21–26 and 28–33.
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

9
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 35–40
The Examiner rejects independent claim 35 as being obvious in view
of Jain, Smith, and Yang. See Final Act. 20–23; Ans. 7–10. Claim 35
recites, in relevant part:
receiving, at a first port on a first switch, a second role
associated with a second switch and a second network ID
associated with a second network, wherein the second switch is
associated with the second network and is directly, physically
connected to the first switch using the first port, wherein the first
switch is associated with a first role and a first network ID, and
wherein the first network ID is associated with a first network;
making a determination, using the first role, the first
network ID, the second role, the second network ID and a
network topology policy, that the first switch should not be
directly, physically connected to the second switch, wherein the
network topology policy specifies that the first switch should
only be directly, physically connected to network devices within
the first network.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claim App.). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Jain
teaches each feature of claim 35, including validating connections based on
component roles, network identifiers, and a network topology policy, with
the exception of the components being switches in different networks and
network topology policy specifying the number of proposed connections.
See Final Act. 20–21; Ans. 7–8. The Examiner relies on Smith to teach
validating connections between switches (a first switch and a second switch)
using a network topology policy. See Final Act. 21–22; Ans. 7–8. The
Examiner further relies on Yang to teach configuring connectivity between
different networks and determining that a first switch should not be
physically connected to a second switch. See Final Act. 22–23; Ans. 8–10
(citing Yang ¶¶ 13, 18, 25; Fig. 1).
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

10
Appellant contends that Jain, Smith, and Yang do not teach certain
disputed features of claim 35. See Appeal Br. 11–13. Specifically,
Appellant contends, inter alia, that Yang does not teach a determination
concerning the two switches—“Yang makes no disclosure of making any
sort of determination as to whether two switches should be directly,
physically connected, much less doing so based on the specific items of
information explicitly required by independent claim 35.” Appeal Br. 12;
see Appeal Br. 12–13.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 20–23)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 7–10) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the
following analysis for emphasis.
As with claim 21 (supra), Appellant apparently misconstrued the
Examiner’s rejection. Appellant failed to apprehend that the Examiner
relied on a combination of Jain, Smith, and Yang to teach the disputed
determination with respect to the switches. See Final Act. 20–23; Ans. 7–
10.
As pointed out by the Examiner, Yang describes various switches in
different networks (data centers), and a “network topology policy specifying
a first network device should only be directly, physically connected to
network devices in the same network, and specifying that two specific
switches in different networks should not be directly, physically connected.”
Ans. 8. See Final Act. 22 (citing Yang ¶¶ 13, 18; Fig. 1); Ans. 8–10 (citing
Yang ¶¶ 13, 18, 25; Fig. 1).
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

11
Also, as with claim 21 (supra), Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s findings with respect to combination of Jain and Smith. See
Appeal Br. 11–13; Final Act. 20–22; Ans. 7–8. The Examiner determined
that the combination of Jain, Smith, and Yang would have taught the
disputed determination. See Final Act. 22–23; Ans. 8–10. Thus, Yang (in
combination with Jain and Smith) at least suggests determining that a first
switch (in a first network) should not be directly, physically connected to a
second switch (in a second network) based on a “network topology policy
[which] specifies that the first switch should only be directly, physically
connected to network devices within the first network” (claim 35) (Appeal
Br. 17 (Claim App.)).
Additionally, although a Reply Brief is not required, Appellant did not
file a Reply Brief and failed to address the Examiner’s clarified findings and
additional discussion of Jain, Smith, and Yang, as well as the disputed
limitations of claim 35, or otherwise rebut the findings and responsive
arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. See Ans. 7–10.
Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Appellant’s
contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding that
Yang (in combination with Jain and Smith) teaches the disputed
determination.
Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s
contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 35
as obvious in view of Jain, Smith, and Yang. Independent claim 38 includes
limitations of commensurate scope. Appellant did not separately argue with
particularity independent claim 38 and dependent claims 36, 37, 39, and 40
Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

12
(supra). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 35–40.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 27 and 34
The Examiner rejects claim 27 as being obvious in view of Jain,
Smith, Strutt, and Genetti. See Final Act. 18–19. The Examiner also rejects
claim 34 as being obvious in view of Jain, Smith, Strutt, and Ojha. See Final
Act. 19–20. Appellant does not separately argue the rejections of claims 27
or 34 with particularity. See Appeal Br. 7; supra.
For the same reasons as claim 21, Appellant does not persuade us of
error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 27 and 34, not
separately argued with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 27 and
34.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
21, 23–26, 28, and 31–33 under the ground of non-statutory obviousness-
type double patenting. Appellant has also not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 21–40 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21–40.

Appeal 2020-003603
Application 15/867,282

13
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 23–26,
28, 31–33
Nonstatutory Double
Patenting US 9,900,217
21, 23–26,
28, 31–33

21–26,
28–33
103 Jain, Smith, Strutt 21–26,
28–33

27 103 Jain, Smith, Strutt,
Genetti
27
34 103 Jain, Smith, Strutt, Ojha 34
35–40 103 Jain, Smith, Yang 35–40
Overall
Outcome
21–40
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED