Bay Microsystems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2022

2020005210 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2022)

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. 14/716,699 05/19/2015 Robert Smedley BAY-042 9010 30139 7590 01/26/2022 WILSON & HAM 1811 Santa Rita Road Suite 130 Pleasanton, CA 94566 EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2022 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 ROBERT SMEDLEY, SOOCHON RADEE, SURESH SHELVAPILLE, EDWARD KINZLER, RICHARD SMEDLEY, JOSEPH SENESI, DANIEL EIGENBRODE, JOHN WOLF, ANUNOY GHOSH, GERARD JANKAUSKAS, and MAN DIEU TRINH ________________ Appeal 2020-005210 Application 14/716,699 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before LARRY J. HUME, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Bay Microsystems, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005210 Application 14/716,699 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to a high performance switching fabric that connects a local area network and a wide area network. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A network device comprising: a local area network (LAN) switching fabric physical interface configured to communicate according to a LAN switching fabric protocol; a wide area network (WAN) physical interface configured to communicate according to a WAN protocol; a fabric extension function configured to; map LAN switching fabric interfaces to Layer 2 pseudo-ports, wherein the Layer 2 pseudo-ports are identified by Layer 2 pseudo-port identifiers; map Layer 2 pseudo-ports to WAN interfaces; and transmit LAN fabric datagrams, which are received at the LAN switching fabric physical interface, out from the WAN physical interface via a mapped pseudo-port and a corresponding WAN interface. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 10, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Awadallah (US 6,449,251 B1; Sept. 10, 2002) and Sanchez (US 2004/0090970 A1; May 13, 2004). Final Act. 3-9. Claims 4-6, 11, and 15-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Awadallah, Sanchez, and Collier (US 2002/0150049 A1; Oct. 17, 2002). Final Act. 10-13. Appeal 2020-005210 Application 14/716,699 3 Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Awadallah, Sanchez, and Sajassi (US 2013/0201986 A1; Aug. 8, 2013). Final Act. 10-13. ANALYSIS Claim 1 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Awadallah and Sanchez do not teach or suggest a fabric extension function configured to: map LAN switching fabric interfaces to Layer 2 pseudo- ports, wherein the Layer 2 pseudo-ports are identified by Layer 2 pseudo-port identifiers; map Layer 2 pseudo-ports to WAN interfaces; and transmit LAN fabric datagrams, which are received at the LAN switching fabric physical interface, out from the WAN physical interface via a mapped pseudo-port and a corresponding WAN interface. See Appeal Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellant argues Awadallah teaches mapping Layer 4 port numbers, such as TCP or UDP port numbers, to other Layer 4 port numbers to control the transmission of time-sensitive data across a WAN. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues Sanchez teaches mapping Layer 2 pseudo port numbers to Layer 2 pseudo port numbers to convey virtual circuits through an access multiplexer. Id. at 7. Appellant argues that neither reference teaches heterogeneous mapping of Layer 4 port numbers to Layer 2 pseudo ports, as required by claim 1. Id. at 8. Appellant argues, if an ordinarily skilled artisan combined the teachings of Awadallah and Sanchez, the resulting system would map Layer 2 pseudo port numbers to Layer 2 Appeal 2020-005210 Application 14/716,699 4 pseudo port numbers, but would not map LAN switching fabric interfaces to Layer 2 pseudo ports, as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Awadallah teaches the functional limitations of claim 1, except for Layer 2 pseudo-ports and their identifiers. Ans. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds Awadallah teaches mapping LAN switching fabric interfaces to reserved high priority ports using dynamic port assignment. Final Act. 3 (citing Awadallah Fig. 3, 3:61-4:8). The Examiner finds Awadallah teaches mapping the reserved high priority ports to WAN interfaces. Id. The Examiner finds Sanchez teaches egress pseudo ports and ingress pseudo ports, which are Layer 2 pseudo ports that have identifiers. Ans. 7-8 (citing Sanchez ¶¶ 82-83). The Examiner finds: When modifying the invention of Awadallah with the teachings of Sanchez, the modification will clearly include the same structure and functionality of mapping LAN switching fabric to a particular port and likewise mapping the port to a WAN interface as taught by Awadallah. The simple modification would entail replacing the ports with L2 pseudo-ports taught by Sanchez. Ans. 8. In other words, the Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would modify Awadallah to map its LAN switching fabric to a pseudo port and map that pseudo port to a WAN interface. Ans. 8. Appellant’s arguments do not respond directly to this finding, instead arguing that the proposed modification would only map Layer 2 pseudo ports to Layer 2 pseudo ports. See Appeal Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2-5. Appellant’s argument appears to misunderstand the Examiner’s proposed modification, instead focusing on a bodily incorporation of Sanchez’s teachings into Awadallah. Appeal 2020-005210 Application 14/716,699 5 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 10 and 14, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 10. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-20, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See id. at 10-12. Claim 5 Claim 5 recites: The network device of claim 1 wherein the fabric extension function is further configured to transmit and receive Layer 2 pseudo-port link packets via the WAN physical interface to establish a link across a WAN, wherein the fabric extension function is further configured to transmit and receive Layer 2 pseudo-port flow control packets via the WAN physical interface to implement credit-based flow control across the WAN, and wherein the fabric extension function is further configured to transmit and receive LAN fabric datagrams over the established link via the WAN physical interface according the credit-based flow control. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 5 because Collier teaches flow control packets that are used in accordance with the Infiniband flow control protocol, which operates at Layer 2 of the OSI model. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues Collier does not teach or suggest that the Infiniband flow control packets are transmitted or received via a Appeal 2020-005210 Application 14/716,699 6 WAN physical interface or used to implement a credit-based flow control across a WAN, as recited in claim 5. Id. at 11-12. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Awadallah teaches a fabric extension function configured to transmit and receive flow control packets via the WAN physical interface to implement flow control across the WAN. Ans. 11. The Examiner finds Awadallah and Sanchez are silent with respect to the flow control being a credit-based flow control. Id. The Examiner finds Collier teaches credit-based flow control and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Collier’s credit-based flow control with Awadallah and Sanchez. Id. Appellant’s argument does not directly address these findings, instead attacking Collier’s teachings individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 5. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 12-14 103 Awadallah, Sanchez 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 12-14 4-6, 11, 15- 19 103 Awadallah, Sanchez, Collier 4-6, 11, 15-19 8, 20 103 Awadallah, Sanchez, Sajassi 8, 20 Overall Outcome 1-20 Appeal 2020-005210 Application 14/716,699 7 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f) (2019). AFFIRMED