Ex Parte Hamedi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

11064140 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/064,140 02/22/2005 Mohamed Hamedi
56436 7590 07/03/2018
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82188095 1268
EXAMINER
TN, BACKHEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/03/2018 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHAMED HAMED!
Appeal2016-005166
Application 11/064, 140
Technology Center 2400
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Mohamed Hamedi (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1, 5,
6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, and 27-30 as unpatentable over Gilfix (US
2004/0167986 Al, published Aug. 26, 2004), Boutros (US 7,188,363 Bl,
issued Mar.6, 2007), and Carcerano (US 6,308,205 Bl, issued Oct. 23,
1 The subject application was previously before the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board in Appeal No. 2011-013228. See Decision dated May 2, 2014. In that
Decision, the adverse decision of the Examiner was AFFIRMED. Following
that Decision, Appellant reopened prosecution and further amended the
claims.
Appeal2016-005166
Application 11/064, 140
2001); 2 and (2) claims 9, 20, and 31 as unpatentable over Gilfix, Boutros,
Carcerano, and VOIP. 3 Claims 2--4, 7, 11, 13-15, 18, 22-24, and 26 have
been cancelled. See Appeal Br. 13-16, Claims App. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter "relate[ s] generally to communication
networks, and more particularly to an interpreter engine in a network
device." Spec. 1, Fig. 1. 4 Claims 1, 12, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
1. A network system for permitting interpretation of a
protocol stored as a script file comprising:
a server;
a script file maintained on a memory associated
with the server, wherein the script file contains policies
corresponding to the protocol that dictate actions of a
network switch in accordance with the protocol and permit
the network switch to perform the actions in accordance
with the protocol;
the network switch including:
an interpreter engine configured to:
receive the script file and interpret the
protocol based upon the script file; and
2 The Examiner does not include claims 27-29 in the heading of this rejection
but discusses these claims in the body of the rejection. See Final Office Action
2, 14 (hereinafter "Final Act.") (dated Jan. 7, 2015). We consider this a
typographical error.
3 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, VoIP/Internet Voice
FCC Consumer Facts (2004).
4 Appellant's Specification does not provide line or paragraph numbering,
and, accordingly, reference will only be made to the page number.
2
Appeal2016-005166
Application 11/064, 140
parse and execute the script file to
cause the network switch to function in
accordance with the protocol without
updating firmware of the network switch;
wherein, prior to the script file being
received, parsed, and executed by the
interpreter engine, the network switch was
not configured to function in accordance with
the protocol;
a processor configured to execute the
interpreter engine;
a port module configured to receive packets
from a network medium; and
a switch control connected to the port module
and configured to perform packet switching on the
received packets to the network medium as
configured by the processor in accordance with the
protocol; and
a network management application maintained on a
memory associated with the server, which is configured to
poll the network switch and transmit the script file to the
network switch if the network switch does not have the
script file.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Gilfix, Boutros, and Carcerano
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, and 27-30
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of independent claims 12
and 25 or dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 27-30 separate
from those presented for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-11; see also
Reply Br. 2-3. 5' 6 We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims
5 Appeal Brief (hereinafter "Appeal Br.") (filed Apr. 28, 2015); Reply Brief
(hereinafter "Reply Br.") (filed Apr. 20, 2016).
6 Appellant references claim 9 rather than claim 12. See Appeal Br. 10; see
3
Appeal2016-005166
Application 11/064, 140
5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, and 27-30 stand or fall with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Independent claim 1 is directed to a network system comprising a
network switch including "a switch control ... configured to perform packet
switching on the received packets to the network medium." Appeal Br. 13,
Claims App. The Examiner finds that Gilfix discloses the network system of
claim 1 substantially as claimed, except Gilfix fails to disclose, inter alia, a
network switch including the above cited switch control limitation. See
Final Act. 2--4. 7 The Examiner finds that "Boutros disclose[ s] a network
device being a firewall or router [i.e., a network switch device] (Col. 2, lines
49-52 and Col. 4, lines 57-60)," wherein network switch device 10 of
Boutros "includes a switching engine 16 for routing packets between
interfaces 14a and 14b." Id. at 16-17; see also id. at 17 (Boutros discloses
"switching engine 16, used to switch packets between the interfaces (see Fig.
1 and Col. 4, line 61 - Col. 5, line 20)."); id. at 5 ("switching engine [16 of
Boutros] switches network packets between interfaces 14a and 14b" ( citing
Boutros 5:4--20, Fig. 1)).
Appellant contends that claim 1 is "directed to a network switch
device ( e.g., a router) that can perform packet switching for packets
traveling through a network medium, not for packets internal to a firewall."
Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, in contrast to the subject invention,
Boutros is directed to a "firewall device" not a "router," "is silent to a
also Reply Br. 3. We consider this a typographical error.
7 The Examiner relies on Carcerano for the disclosure of the network
management application. See Final Act. 5-6.
4
Appeal2016-005166
Application 11/064, 140
network device, and fails to enable a router device." See id. ( emphasis
omitted). As such, Appellant concludes that "Boutros, which is directed to
firewall functionality and not router functionality, does not teach a router
device [i.e., the claimed network switch device]." Id. at 11; see also Reply
Br. 2.
As an initial matter, we note Appellant's Specification describes that
"[t]he network device 115 can be,for example, a network switch, a router, or
another suitable network device." Spec. 8, Fig. 1. In other words, according
to the Specification, a network switch and a router are two different
examples of what constitutes network device 115 of the subject invention.
Here, Boutros discloses that "[t]he firewall device 10 may be a conventional
firewall device or router device, and as such comprises conventional
hardware components (not shown), such as a processor and memory, for
example." See Boutros 4:57---60 ( emphasis added), Fig. 1; see also id. at
2 :49--50 ("By way of example and not of limitation, the firewall core [ 18]
operates in a firewall or router device." (emphasis added)); Ans. 3; Final
Act. 16. Stated differently, firewall device 10 of Boutros can be either a
conventional firewall device or a router device and firewall core 18 of
Boutros can operate in either a firewall device or a router device.
Consequently, based on Boutros's disclosure, Appellant fails to apprise us of
error in the Examiner's finding that Boutros discloses a "router device," (i.e.,
the claimed "network switch device"). See Final Act. 16; see also Ans. 3.
Appellant contends that "the portions of Bourtos relied on by the
Examiner to teach packet switching are instead directed to ordinary use of a
firewall, e.g., to intercept a packet and authorize or deny the intercepted
packet." Reply Br. 3; see also id. at 2; Appeal Br. 9. In particular,
5
Appeal2016-005166
Application 11/064, 140
Appellant contends that "in Boutros[,] the firewall intercepts and inspects
packets, but does not affect switching, which occurs after the inspection
regardless of the protocol." Appeal Br. 9.
As an initial matter, we note Appellant states that the "claimed 'packet
switching' is that which is performed by a network switch for packets
traveling through a network medium, not for packets internal to a firewall."
Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant's
Specification distinguishes between the "network switch" and the "switch
control." See Spec. 12. That is, the Specification describes that "[i]f the
network device 115 is a network switch, then a switch control 190 can also
be configured by the processor 185 to perform an action in accordance with
the rule sets or policy in the script file 120" and that "[t]he switch control
190 is typically an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) designed to
assist the processor 185 in performing packet switching." Id. Further claim
1 recites that "the network switch" includes "a switch control ... configured
to perform packet switching on the received packets to the network
medium." Appeal Br. 13, Claims App. As such, the switch control, not the
network switch, is configured to perform the claimed packet switching. See
id. Further, as discussed above, Boutros discloses that firewall device 10
can be either a conventional firewall device or a router device and firewall
core 18 can operate in either a firewall device or a router device. See
Boutros 2:49--50, 4:57---60, Fig. 1; see also Final Act. 16; Ans. 3.
In this case, we do not understand the Examiner to be equating
"Boutros' [ s] interception and inspection of packets" at firewall core 18 with
Appellant's claimed "packet switching." See Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal
Br. 9. Rather, we understand the Examiner to find that Boutros discloses
6
Appeal2016-005166
Application 11/064, 140
"switching engine 16 [is] used to switch packets between ... interfaces [ 14a
and 14b]." See Final Act. 17 (citing Boutros 4:61-5:20, Fig. 1); see also
id. at 5, 16. Appellant acknowledges that firewall core 18 of Boutros
"intercepts and inspects packets" before any switching occurs. See Appeal
Br. 9 ("[S]witching ... occurs after the inspection regardless of the
protocol." (emphasis added)); see also Boutros 5:16-18 ("[T]he firewall
core 18 intercepts data communicated from interfaces 14a, 14b before it is
switched to another interface." (emphasis added)). Additionally, Boutros
discloses that "[i]nterfaces 14a, 14b are each coupled to a switching engine
16. The switching engine 16 comprises software code configured to carry
out the operation of routing network packets between communication
interfaces 14a, 14b of the firewall [/router] device 10." Boutros 5: 4--8
(emphasis added); see also Final Act. 5, 16-17; Ans. 3--4.
Based on the foregoing, we understand the Examiner's position to be
that Boutros discloses a network switch device (i.e., router device 10) having
a switch control (i.e., switching engine 16) that is configured to perform
packet switching (i.e., switching between interfaces 14a and 14b) on the
received packets (i.e., the authorized packets from firewall core 18) to the
network medium (i.e., LAN/network 2). See Final Act. 4--5, 16-17; see also
Ans. 3--4; id. at 4 (the Examiner's annotated version of Figure 1 of Boutros);
Appeal Br. 13, Claims App. The Examiner's findings are sound and
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant does not provide
sufficient evidence or argument apprising us of error.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Gilfix, Boutros, and Carcerano. Accordingly, we sustain
7
Appeal2016-005166
Application 11/064, 140
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Gilfix, Boutros, and
Carcerano. We further sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17,
19, 21, 25, and 27-30, which fall with claim 1.
Obviousness over Gilfix, Boutros, Carcerano, and VOIP
Claims 9, 20, and 31
Claim 9 depends from independent claim 1. Claim 20 depends from
independent claim 12. Claim 31 depends from independent claim 25.
Appellant states that claims 9, 20, and 31 "are not argued independently, but
shall stand or fall with their respective independent claims." Appeal Br. 11;
see also Reply Br. 3--4. As we find no deficiency in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and claims 12 and 25, which fall with claim 1, we
likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 20 and 31 as
unpatentable over Gilfix, Boutros, Carcerano, and VOIP for the reasons
discussed above.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 5, 6, 8,
10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, and 27-30 as unpatentable over Gilfix, Boutros,
and Carcerano.
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9, 20, and
31 as unpatentable over Gilfix, Boutros, Carcerano, and VOIP.
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
8