Ex Parte Bao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2017

14158661 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2017)

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.
14/158,661 01/17/2014 Dalun Bao 31AE-171307 2350
69849 7590 10/27/2017
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
EXAMINER
ROY, SANJOY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2017 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):
svpatents @ sheppardmullin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DALUN BAO and CHANGMING LIU
(Applicant: Aerohive Networks, Inc.)
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
Technology Center 2400
Before DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—12, and 14—20, which are all of the claims
pending in the application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 3,13, and 21—22 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2; see App.
Br. 25-27.
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to assigning
network devices to a regional device management engine that manages the
flow of data packets into and out of the network devices. Spec. 1 6.2 An
interregional redirector engine assigns a network device to a load balancer,
which in turn assigns the network device to a regional device management
engine. Id. 6—7. If the load balancer system determines that the regional
device management engine has failed, then the load balancer system can
reassign the network device to another regional device management engine
that is not failing. Id. 1 8. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for building and maintaining a network, the
method comprising:
operationally connecting a network device to an
interregional redirector engine;
receiving at the interregional redirector engine network
device information of the network device, the network device
information including geography information and enterprise
network information of the network device;
assigning, by the interregional redirector engine, the
network device to a load balancer system based on the network
device information;
assigning, by the load balancer system, the network device
to a regional network device management engine based on the
network device information;
2 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed January 17,
2014 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed March 21,
2016; (3) the Advisory Action (Adv. Act.) mailed June 23, 2016; (4) the
Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed August 22, 2016; (5) the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans.) mailed December 30, 2016; and (6) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed
February 28, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
managing, by the load balancer system, the regional
network device management engine;
managing, by the regional network device management
engine, the network device in providing access to an enterprise
network.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4—12, and 14—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Thomson (US 2009/0113018 Al, published Apr.
30, 2009) andNarayana (US 2010/0290397 Al, published Nov. 18, 2010).
Final Act. 3—15.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1).
ISSUES
1. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Thomson and
Narayana teaches “an interregional redirector engine,” as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claim 11?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Thomson and
Narayana teaches “the network device,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claim 11?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Thomson and
Narayana teaches “network device information including geography
information and enterprise network information of the network device” and
“assigning, by the interregional redirector engine, the network device to a
3
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
load balancer system based on the network device information,” as recited
in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11?
4. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Thomson and
Narayana teaches “assigning, by the interregional redirector engine, the
network device to a load balancer system . . assigning, by the load
balancer system, the network device to a regional network device
management engine . . [and] managing, by the load manager system, the
regional network device management engine,” as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claim 11?
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions with respect to independent
claim 1 and 11, and we adopt as our own (1) the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning set forth in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 3—15), (2) the Examiner’s reasoning set forth in the Advisory
Action (Adv. Act. 2), and (3) the Examiner’s reasoning set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3—11). We highlight the following points for
emphasis.
Issue 1
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Thomson and Narayana teaches “an interregional redirector engine,” as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11. App. Br. 8, 14, 17, 23;
Reply Br. 5—6. Specifically, Appellant argues Thomson’s Master Mobility
Service Engine (Master MSE) “is not interregional. Rather, it is
intraregional.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5. Additionally, Appellant argues
4
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
Narayana does not teach an interregional redirector engine because
“Narayana relates to load balancing within a single physical location.” App.
Br. 14; Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Thomson’s
Master MSE teaches “an interregional redirector engine.” Ans. 4—5 (citing
Thomson H 32—34); Final Act. 3 (citing Thomson 124). In particular, the
Examiner finds Thomson’s Master MSE “assigns [a] new [Access Point
(AP)] to a [Network Service Segment (NSS)]” e.g., “NSS1, NSS2 and
NSS3.” Ans. 4—5 (citing Thomson H 32—34); Final Act. 3 (citing Thomson
124). In other words, “[Master] MSE is working . . .between the regions or
NSSs.” Ans. 5.
Initially, we note that neither the claims nor the Specification define
“interregional.” The Specification does disclose a “region can be defined
based on ... a geographical area or location, such as a city or a building.”
Spec. 133. Thus, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Thomson’s Master
MSE is interregional because it forms NSSs and controls operation between
NSSs, where each NSS represents a region of the network. Ans. 4 (citing
Thomson 121); see also Thomson 132 (“Master MSE 102 employs an
algorithm to evenly divide the NSS[s] across the set of [Slave Mobility
Service Engines (Slave MSEs)]”)); see also Thomson H 24, 36, 38, 63—64.
Thomson’s NSSs can each be defined by a geographical area such as a
building, e.g., “second NSS (NSS2) 204 comprises all five floors (FI, F2,
F3, F4, F5) of first building 201” and “third NSS (NSS3) 206 comprises all
five floors (FI, F2, F3, F4, F5) of second building 203.” Thompson 1 52;
see Thompson, Figs. 2, 4, 5, H 21, 33. Because NSS2 and NSS3 each
define a different building, and Appellant’s Specification discloses a
5
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
building can be a region (Spec. 1 33), NSS2 and NSS3 teach respective
regions. And, because Thomson’s Master MSE forms NSS regions and
controls operations between NSS regions, the Master MSE is
“interregional.”
Additionally, Appellant’s argument that Narayana does not teach an
interregional redirector engine (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6) does not address
the Examiner’s finding that Thomson’s Master MSE teaches an interregional
redirector engine.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding
Thomson teaches “an interregional redirector engine,” as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claim 11.
Issue 2
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Thomson teaches “the
network device,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11.
App. Br. 11, 20. Specifically, Appellant argues Thomson’s device is not a
network device because “[djevice 460 is a device that accesses a network
through AP’s, e.g. 410-419 and is not described as a device capable of
providing other client devices with network access.” Id.
We are not persuaded. Appellant’s argument that Thomson’s network
accessing device 460 is not a “network device” (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 7—8)
does not address the Examiner’s finding that Thomson teaches “network
devices are controllers and access points” (APs) which provide network
services. Ans. 9 (citing Thomson || 16, 24, 33). Appellant’s Specification
discloses “a network device can be ... an access point.” Spec. 117. As
such, Thomson’s APs teach network devices. Accordingly, we are not
6
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
persuaded the Examiner erred by finding Thomson teaches “the network
device,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11.
Issue 3
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Thomson teaches
“network device information including geography information and
enterprise network information of the network device” and “assigning, by
the interregional redirector engine, the network device to a load balancer
system based on the network device information,” as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claim 11. App. Br. 9, 18; Reply Br. 7—9. Specifically,
Appellant argues the “Examiner admits Thomson does not teach” network
device information includes geography information and enterprise network
information. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7—8. Additionally, Appellant argues
Narayana does not “assign[] a network device to a [load] balancer based on
network device information including both geography information and
enterprise network information.” Reply Br. 9.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 4—5), and we
agree, Narayana teaches “[w]hen an AP boots up, it contacts a [Mobility
Switch] and provides its identity and location information” (Narayana 133;
see also id. 114 (“When an AP initializes, it. . . provides its unique
identification information (a serial number or MAC address).”). The
Examiner further finds (Adv. Act. 2; Final Act. 4—5), and we agree, after the
AP provides its identity and location information, the AP is assigned using
“[l]ocation based load balancing” (Narayana 145; see also id. H 33, 41—43).
7
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
Appellant’s argument that Thomson does not teach that the network
device includes “geography information and enterprise network
information” is not persuasive because it does not address the Examiner’s
finding that Narayana teaches geography information and enterprise network
information for a network device. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Narayana 133); see
Narayana 114. Additionally, Appellant’s argue that Narayana “teaches load
balancing based only on location” and does not “assign[] a network device
to a [load] balancer based on network device information including both
geography information and enterprise network information.” Reply
Br. 9. Neither the claims nor Appellant’s Specification, however, discuss
enterprise network information. Appellant, thus, fails to establish
interpreting enterprise network information to encompass identification
information (Narayana 114) is inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification.
Accordingly, Narayana’s AP identification information, such as a serial
number or MAC address {id. H 14—15), is enterprise network information
within the meaning of the claim. Further, Narayana discusses location
information, describing the location of the AP in an enterprise network {id.
14—15, 33). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Narayana teaches, or at least suggests, both geography information and
enterprise network information. Final Act. 4—5. Moreover, we are not
persuaded that assigning an AP based on both its enterprise network
identification information and geography or location information would
have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citation omitted).
8
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding
Narayana teaches “network device information including geography
information and enterprise network information of the network device” and
“assigning, by the interregional redirector engine, the network device to a
load balancer system based on the network device information,” as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11.
Issue 4
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Thomson and Narayana teaches “assigning, by the interregional redirector
engine, the network device to a load balancer system . . assigning, by the
load balancer system, the network device to a regional network device
management engine . . [and] managing, by the load manager system, the
regional network device management engine,” as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claim 11. App. Br. 9—11, 14, 19—23; Reply Br. 10—11.
Specifically, Appellant argues the “interregional redirector engine, the load
balance[r] system, and the regional network device management engine are
claimed as separate elements and are therefore are separate elements,” but
the Examiner finds Thompson’s Slave Mobility Service Engine (Slave MSE)
is both “a load balancer system” and “a regional network device
management engine.” App. Br. 9—11; Reply Br. 8, 10—11. Appellant further
argues Thompson’s “[Slave]-MSEs do not communicate with each other”
and therefore “are incapable of assigning each other tasks or managing tasks
of each other.” App. Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 10. Additionally, Appellant
argues Narayana does not teach “a separate interregional redirector engine, a
9
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
load balancer system, and a regional network device management engine.”
App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Ans. 8; Adv. Act. 2;
Final Act. 6), and we agree, Thomson’s “Master MSE 102 provides for
Load-Balancing . . . across the set of [Slave]-MSEs 104, 106, 108”
(Thomson 138). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Thomson’s
Slave MSE teaches a “regional network device management engine” and
“provides primary service” for network devices. Ans. 5—7 (citing Thomson
1128—38, 61—64); Adv. Act. 2; Final Act. 6; see Thomson 121.
Appellant’s arguments that Thomson’s Slave MSEs cannot be both
the load balancer system and the regional network device management
engine and that Slave MSEs cannot manage one another (App. Br. 9-11;
Reply Br. 8, 10—11) do not address the Examiner’s findings that Thomson’s
Master MSE teaches a load balancing system and Thomson’s Slave MSE
teaches a regional network device management engine. In particular,
Thomson’s “[Master]-MSE load balances across the set of [Slave]-SMEs,”
and, accordingly, the Master MSE manages Slave SMEs. Thomson 138;
see id. 132, Figs. 1,3.
Further, Appellant’s argument that the interregional redirector engine,
the load balancer, and the regional network device management engine are
each separate elements (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 8, 10-11) is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. As the Examiner points out
(Ans. 8), the claim does not recite that those functional elements are
embodied as separate structures. Moreover, Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s conclusion that “distributed,” i.e., separate, interregional
redirector engines and load balancers would have been “obvious.” Ans. 8—9.
10
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
Indeed, Thomson at least suggests separating logical functions into separate
elements, teaching that engines are logical entities that “may be instituted on
a separate dedicated hardware engine.” Thomson 129; see also Spec. 128
(“An engine . . . includes . . . software modules executed by the
processor. . . . [A]n engine can be centralized or its functionality
distributed.”).
Additionally, Appellant’s argument that Narayana does not teach “a
separate interregional redirector engine, a load balancer system, and a
regional network device management engine” (App. Br. 14) is not
persuasive because those arguments do not address the Examiner’s findings
that Thomson teaches the disputed elements.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the
combination of Thomson and Narayana teaches “assigning, by the
interregional redirector engine, the network device to a load balancer
system . . .; assigning, by the load balancer system, the network device to a
regional network device management engine . . .; [and] managing, by the
load manager system, the regional network device management engine,” as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 11. We, therefore, sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, as well as
dependent claims 2, 4—10, 12, and 14—20, which are not argued separately.
See App. Br. 15, 24; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—12, and
14—20.
11
Appeal 2017-005797
Application 14/158,661
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
12