Ex Parte Dickinson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13044494 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
13/044,494 03/09/2011 Andrew B. Dickinson 090204-0793856 1980
(021300US)
107508 7590 10/02/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/ Amazon, Inc
Mailstop: IP Docketing 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
CHOU, ALAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ATI-Patents@kilpatricktownsend.com
KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW B. DICKINSON and ERIC JASON BRAND WINE
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,4941
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1—29. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Amazon Technologies,
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to remapping addresses in
multi-tenant resources and cloud computing, and more particularly to using
remappable addresses that are globally relocatable. Spec. 1—2, 10.
Independent claims 1 and 4 are directed to computer-implemented methods;
independent claim 25 is directed to a system; and independent claim 28 is
directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. App. Br.
24, 25, 29 (Claims App’x).
Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method of directing network
traffic, comprising:
under control of one or more computer systems
configured with executable instructions,
mapping a global remappable Internet protocol
(IP) address to at least one virtual instance located in at
least one network location of a plurality of network
locations;
announcing the global remappable IP address from
at least two of those network locations;
receiving network traffic to a receiving network
location of the at least two network locations from which
the global remappable IP address is announced;
determining a destination network location for the
network traffic;
when the destination network location is different
from the receiving network location:
remapping the network traffic to an intermediate
IP address for the destination network location, and
sending the network traffic to the intermediate IP
address in the destination network location; and
2
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
remapping the network traffic and delivering the
network traffic to a target instance of the at least one
virtual instance when the network traffic is received at
the destination network location,
wherein the destination network location being
different from the receiving network location includes the
destination network location and the receiving network
location being located in geographically separated
regions.
Claim 4 recites:
4. A computer-implemented method of directing network
traffic, comprising:
under control of one or more computer systems
configured with executable instructions,
receiving network traffic at a receiving network
location of a service provider network, the network
traffic being received to a global remappable address
announced from at least one point of the service provider
network, each point capable of being in a different
network location and being mapped to a target
destination of the service provider network;
determining a destination network location for the
network traffic; and
when the destination network location is different
from the receiving network location:
remapping the network traffic to an intermediate
address of the service provider network for the
destination network location,
sending the network traffic to the intermediate
address in the destination network location; and
remapping the network traffic and delivering the
network traffic to the target destination when the network
traffic is received at the destination network location,
wherein the destination network location being different
from the receiving network location includes the destination
3
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
network location and the receiving network location being
located in geographically separated regions.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—5, 7—15, 17—21, 23—25, and 27—29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2011/0261828 Al,
published Oct. 27, 2011), Choi (US 2004/0037316 Al, published Feb. 26,
2004), and Kloninger (US 2004/0073596 Al, published Apr. 15, 2004).
Final Act. 2.
Claims 6 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith, Choi, Kloninger, and Blander (US 2008/0282254
Al, published Nov. 13, 2008). Final Act. 11.
Claims 16 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith, Choi, Kloninger, and Yang (US 2012/0269174 Al,
published Oct. 25, 2012). Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3
Claim 1 recites “announcing the global remappable IP address from at
least two of those network locations” of a plurality of network locations
(emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that “[tjogether Smith and Choi teaches:
announcing the global remappable IP address . . . from at least two of the
network locations.” Ans. 5 (citing Choi 124; Smith || 20, 31); see also
Final Act 4 (citing Choi 124; Smith || 17, 20). We disagree with this
interpretation.
4
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
The claimed invention requires that the announcing of the global
remappable IP address is from at least two network locations. Appellants’
Specification details the conventional approach to mapping points, where
“there are many different points 508 at which the Internet ‘touches’ the
service provider” and only “one of those points would announce a specific
IP address for purposes of routing traffic.” Spec. 1 59; Fig. 5(a).
Appellants’ Specification further provides an exemplary embodiment for the
claimed invention providing “more than one of those points where the
service provider 514 touches the Internet 512 can announce the same global
remappable IP address.” Spec. 1 59; Fig 5(b). We find that the claimed
“announcing the global remappable IP address from at least two of those
network locations,” in light of Appellants’ Specification, distinguishes
announcing from multiple network locations over announcing from one
network location.
Here, we agree with Appellants that “although Choi describes various
‘announcements’ and requests for announcement, there is no specifically
identified IP address that is announced from at least two network locations.'''’
App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6. We further agree with Appellants that “there is no
reasonable suggestion by which one of skill in the art would have modified
Smith to announce the IP addresses used to route traffic to individual VMs
from multiple network locations.” App. Br. 15 (emphasis added).
We find that, although Smith teaches multiple network locations (see
Smith 117 (“virtual machines are deployed within the cloud on demand with
the IP addresses of the VMs controlled by the enterprise”)) and Choi teaches
announcing IP addresses from one location (see Choi 1 65 (“IPv6 terminal
510 performs the announcing”)), the reason to arrive at the claimed
5
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
invention by combining Smith and Choi is necessarily based in
impermissible hindsight. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395
(CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it. . . does not
include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper.”); see also Innogenetics, N. V. v. Abbott Labs., 512
F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We must still be careful not to allow
hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without
any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to
produce the claimed invention.”). The Examiner’s reasoning to modify
Choi’s announcing from one network location with Smith’s multiple
network locations is to “inform the network available virtual instances over
the network” and “give network elements redirecting data to help forward
the network traffic.” Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 6. However, the Examiner does
not provide additional explanation beyond announcing addresses for routing
traffic, which is gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure distinguishing
announcing from multiple network locations over announcing from one
network location.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Choi’s announcing remappable IP addresses and Smith’s multiple
network locations renders obvious the claimed “announcing the global
remappable IP address from at least two of those network locations,” as
recited in claim 1. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments
advanced by Appellants regarding claim 1, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants’ other arguments.
6
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1—3.
Claims 4—29
“[R]emapping the network traffic to an intermediate address ” and
“remapping the network traffic and delivering the network traffic to the
target destination ”
The Examiner finds “Smith teaches sending to network traffic
destined for VM E starting from Virtual Switch 46, remapped first time and
send to VM A then VM A remap second time and forward to VM E.” Ans.
4; see also Final Act. 3—\\ Ans. 3 (citing Smith || 26, 28, Figs. 3—4).
Appellants contend that claim 4 “requires two separately claimed
remapping steps that are applied to the network traffic,” but that Smith does
not teach a “corresponding additional remapping of the (same) network
traffic.” App. Br. 11; see also App. Br. 12—14. Appellants specifically
argue Smith does not teach a second remapping because Virtual Machines B
to E do not forward and deliver the network traffic to a target instance. App.
Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. However, Appellants’ conclusory argument that Smith
is missing the second remapping limitation does not address the Examiner’s
finding that Figure 3 of Smith teaches a first remapping to VM A and a
second remapping to VM E. Figure 3 of Smith is reproduced below.
7
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
Figure 3 of Smith shows virtual switch 46 on server 40 connected to
VM A 30 with virtual switch 34, which is connected to each of VM B, VM
C, VM D, and VM E.
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 3—4), Smith teaches
“the virtual switch 34 installed at VM A . . . switches traffic between the
secure virtual wires 48 connecting the virtual switch to the virtual machines
30,” where the “virtual wires 48 run from the virtual switch 34 to the agent
32 installed in the virtual machines 30.” Smith 128. As further cited by the
Examiner (Final Act. 3), Smith teaches “virtual switch 34 receives data from
the external network,” and the “received data is destined for one or more of
the virtual machines 30 located within the cloud network 20,” and the
8
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
“virtual switch 34 transmits the data to the virtual machine 30 over virtual
wire 48.” Smith 131.
Appellants’ Specification describes “remapping” as “enabling the
traffic received at those network locations to be directed to the appropriate
instances or other destinations at any given time.” Spec. 110. Paragraph 13
of Appellants’ Specification further describes various non-limiting examples
for policies dictating how addresses should be remapped, including “to route
customer traffic where the routing is determined based at least in part upon
an originating location or address of the traffic.” Thus, Appellants’
Specification provides non-limiting examples that the claimed “remapping”
encompasses allowing for traffic to be properly routed to its destination.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the claimed
“remapping the network traffic to an intermediate IP address” is taught by
Smith’s receiving at virtual switch 34 on VM A external data destined for
another virtual machine B to E (i.e., a first remapping to an intermediate
address by remapping and sending the data to VM A). See Final Act. 3
(citing Smith 126, Fig. 3); see also Ans. 3^4. We further agree the claimed
“remapping the network traffic and delivering the network traffic to the
target destination” is taught by Smith’s sending data from virtual switch 34
on VM A to its destined virtual machine connected to virtual switch 34, such
as VM B, VM C, VM D, or VM E (i.e., second remapping to a target
instance at the destination network location by remapping and sending from
VM A to its destined VM B to E). See Final Act. 4 (citing Smith 128, Fig.
4); see also Ans. 3^4. Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or
evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings.
9
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
“[WJhen the destination network location is different from the
receiving network location: remapping the network traffic to an intermediate
address of the service provider network for the destination network
location . . . and remapping the network traffic and delivering the network
traffic to the target destination when the network traffic is received at the
destination network location ”
Appellants further contend that claim 4 requires “each remapping step
is conditional on the traffic being received at different network locations,
and includes remapping the same network traffic,” but that Smith instead
teaches “the second remapping step being dependent on the first remapping
step” and does not teach the destination network location different from the
receiving network location. Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that Smith “teaches mapping of IP addresses to
more than one virtual switches, or accessing from two of the network
locations . . . based on the demand.” Final Act. 4 (citing Smith H 17, 20).
We agree with the Examiner.
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 4), Smith teaches the “virtual
machines are deployed within the cloud on demand with the IP addresses of
the VMs controlled by the enterprise” (Smith 117) and the “virtual switch
34 transmits data received from the enterprise 12 to virtual machines 30”
(Smith 120). Smith thereby teaches the virtual machines for which the
received data is destined having different IP addresses.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that
the claimed destination network location and receiving network locations
being different network locations is not taught or otherwise suggested by
Smith’s virtual machines that each have their own IP addresses and among
which the data is routed.
10
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
Appellants further contend Smith does not teach a system where data
is destined for VM E is routed through VM A and VM C, and that any
mapping of Smith’s VM E to the claimed destination network and Smith’s
VM C to the claimed intermediate IP address is in error. Reply Br. 4.
However, Appellants’ contention is not persuasive as Appellants have
mischaracterized the Examiner’s rejection. Specifically, as discussed supra,
the Examiner finds the claimed first remapping to the intermediate IP
address is taught by Smith’s remapping data that is destined for VM E to
VM A, and that the claimed second remapping to the target instance is
taught by Smith’s remapping from VM A to destined VM B to E. Final Act.
3^4. Appellants have not persuasively argued the Examiner’s findings.
Furthermore, the Examiner relies on Kloninger to teach the
destination network location and the receiving network location as being
located in geographically separated regions. Final Act. 5 (citing Kloninger
124, Fig. 1). We agree with the Examiner’s findings because Kloninger
teaches the distribution of content servers over “a corporate headquarters
facility 100, at least one regional hub 102, and a set of one or more branch
offices 104.” Kloninger 124. Therefore, Kloninger’s teaching of different
network locations being geographically separated is cumulative to Smith’s
teaching of different network locations having their own IP addresses.
“[A] global remappable address announced from at least one point of
the service provider network”
The Examiner finds Choi teaches announcing IP addresses and Smith
teaches doing so from network locations. Ans. 5 (citing Choi 124; Smith
1120, 31). Appellants argue “although Choi describes various
11
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
‘announcements’ and requests for announcement, there is no specifically
identified IP address that is announced from at least two network locations.'''’
App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6.
However, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 4. Specifically, claim 4 recites “a global remappable address
announced from at least one point of the service provider network”
(emphasis added). Unlike claim 1, as discussed supra, claim 4 does not
distinguish between announcing from multiple locations and announcing
from one location. Instead, claim 4 merely requires announcing the global
remappable address from at least one location. See In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Although the claims are interpreted in
light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into
the claims.).
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 5), Choi teaches converting a “private
IP address into the global IP address” and a “mapping table saving the
second private IP address of the second terminal and the global IP address,”
as well as “performing an announcing, requesting a registration of the
second terminal to a master server.” Choi 124. Choi teaches “IPv6 terminal
510 performs the announcing.” Choi 1 65. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument that the claimed “a global remappable
address announced from at least one point of the service provider network”
is not taught or otherwise suggested by Choi’s announcing an IP address
from at least one location such as an IP terminal.
Appellants further argue Choi’s announcing and requesting
registration is not the same as or suggestive of “announcing the global
remappable IP address” because Choi’s “global IP address” is not
12
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
“remappable.” Reply Br. 6. Appellants’ arguments do not explain why
Choi’s global IP addresses are not remappable. Furthermore, Appellants’
argument contradicts the teachings of Choi. Specifically, Choi teaches an IP
address converting apparatus, a second private IP address for a second
terminal, allotting the second terminal “with a network address to generate a
global IP address” and storing that in a mapping table, and “converting the
second private IP address into the global IP address” and “performing an
announcing.” Choi, Abstract. Choi’s IP address converting and mapping
teaches an IP address being remappable as encompassed by Appellants’
definition. See Spec. 138 (“For IP addresses, for example, such an approach
enables a customer to remap an existing DNS name to a new instance’s
public IP address using dynamic DNS.”). Therefore, Appellants’ conclusory
argument that Choi does not teach announcing remappable global IP
addresses contradicts Choi’s mapping and converting IP addresses.
The combination of Smith and Choi
Appellants argue “there is no reasonable suggestion by which one of
skill in the art would have modified Smith to announce the IP addresses used
to route traffic to individual VMs from multiple network locations.” App.
Br. 15. However, claim 4 recites “a global remappable address announced
from at least one point of the service provider network” (emphasis added),
and merely requires announcing the global remappable address from at least
one location. Therefore, the Examiner does not need to identify a reasonable
suggestion to modify Smith to announce the IP address used to route traffic
from multiple network locations. Instead, the Examiner needs only to
identify a reasonable suggestion to modify Smith to announce the IP address
13
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
from at least one location. The Examiner finds the motivation to combine
Smith and Choi is “to inform the network available virtual instances over the
network.” Final Act. 5. Thus, the Examiner has provided “some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness,” and Appellants have failed to rebut the Examiner’s motivation
to combine Smith and Choi. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 417-18 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)).
The combination of Smith and Kloninger
Appellants argue “Smith is not concerned with the problem addressed
by the relied-upon portions of Kloninger” and, therefore, “Kloninger does
not provide any reasonable suggestion for modifying Smith in the manner
suggested.” App. Br. 17. Appellants further argue “it would not have been
obvious to have modified the Smith VPC 20 and subnets 25 based on the
‘regional hubs’ and ‘branch office’ in Kloninger” because Kloninger’s hubs
and branch offices are “each supported by their own content servers.” App.
Br. 18. The Examiner finds the motivation for combining Smith and
Kloninger would have been to “allow distributed content offloading.” Final
Act. 5. Thus, the Examiner has provided “some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,”
and Appellants have failed to rebut the Examiner’s motivation to combine
the references for allowing distributed content offloading. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 417—18 (quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).
14
Appeal 2017-005592
Application 13/044,494
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection for
independent claim 4, as well as for commensurate independent claims 25
and 28, and dependent claims 5—24, 26, 27, and 29, not separately argued.
See App. Br. 22.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 4—29 are affirmed.
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
15