Ex Parte Hake et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2012

10986946 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MIKE HAKE, SAMUEL L. SCARPELLO,
and CARLOS BONILLA
____________

Appeal 2009-012662
Application 10/986,946
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012662
Application 10/986,946

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-33, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to defragmenting subnet space within an
adaptive infrastructure. A method includes defining parameters of a
netmask that is used to determine if subnets are joinable, identifying subnets
to include in a list of available subnets that identifies subnets that are
available to be allocated to resources that are a part of an adaptive
infrastructure, and comparing each subnet in the list of available subnets
with every other subnet in the list of available subnets to determine if each
subnet in the list of available subnets is joinable with any other subnet in the
list of available subnets. The method further includes deleting a subnet from
the list of available subnets if the subnet is determined to be joinable with
another subnet in the list of available subnets and replacing deleted
individual subnets that are joinable together with supernets of the deleted
individual subnets that are joinable together. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method for defragmenting subnet space within an
adaptive infrastructure, said method comprising:

defining parameters of a netmask that is used to
determine if subnets are joinable;

Appeal 2009-012662
Application 10/986,946

3
accessing subnets to include in a list of available subnets
that identifies subnets that are available to be allocated to
resources that are a part of an adaptive infrastructure;

comparing each subnet in said list of available subnets
with every other subnet in said list of available subnets to
determine if said each subnet in said list of available subnets is
joinable with any other subnet in said list of available subnets;

based on said defined parameters, joining a first subnet
with a second subnet, which is adjacent with said first subnet, to
create a supernet without joining a third subnet, which is
adjacent with said second subnet, with said supernet wherein
said first, second, and third subnets are the same size and
wherein different defined parameters would result in different
subnets being joined; and

updating said list to replace joinable subnets with said
supernet comprising said joinable subnets.

Prior Art
Stapp US 7,302,484 B1 Nov. 27, 2007

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Stapp.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the Appeal on the basis of claim 1.

Appeal 2009-012662
Application 10/986,946

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
We agree with, and adopt as our own, the findings of fact made by the
Examiner in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Stapp does not disclose “based on said
defined parameters, joining a first subnet with a second subnet, which is
adjacent with said first subnet, to create a supernet without joining a third
subnet, which is adjacent with said second subnet, with said supernet
wherein said first, second, and third subnets are the same size and wherein
different defined parameters would result in different subnets being joined”
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-14; Reply Br. 1-3. The Examiner finds that
Stapp teaches this limitation. Final Rej. 2-4, 5-7; Ans. 3-6, 8-10. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Figure 4 of Stapp shows adjacent subnets
443, 444, and 445 that are the same size, where subnets 444 and 445 are
joined to create a supernet without joining subnet 443. Final Rej. 2-3.
We agree with the Examiner. We concur with the findings and
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants have not presented arguments for
separate patentability of claims 2-33, which thus fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Stapp is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-012662
Application 10/986,946

5
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

msc