Ex Parte Iszlai et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 2012

11115423 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte GABRIEL ISZLAI, RADU BOGDAN MATEESCU, and PAUL-
VLAD TATAVU
____________________

Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, ERIC B. CHEN, and BRUCE R. WINSOR,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. Claims 2-4, 8-14, and 16-18 were canceled by Appellants’
amendment after the final rejection (After Final Amendment, mailed Nov.
14, 2008). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases on
disputed portions of the claim added, reads as follows:

1. A method of managing VLANs, said method comprising:

establishing a first broadcast domain, said first broadcast domain
including a first VLAN;

establishing a second broadcast domain, said second broadcast
domain including a second VLAN;

establishing a third broadcast domain such that the third broadcast
domain replaces the first broadcast domain and the second broadcast
domain, and wherein the first VLAN and the second VLAN are included in
the third broadcast domain such that the first VLAN directly communicates
with the second VLAN; and

after establishing the third broadcast domain, segregating the third
broadcast domain into a fourth broadcast domain and a fifth broadcast
domain, wherein the fourth broadcast domain includes the first VLAN and
the fifth broadcast domain includes the second VLAN.
Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423

3
Examiner’s Rejection1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-7, 15, 19, and 20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Yuasa (US
6,085,238) and Marimuthu (US 5,878,232). Because claims 8 and 12-14
were canceled in Appellants’ amendment after the final rejection, the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Yuasa and Marimuthu (see Final Rej. 5) is not before us on appeal.
Similarly, because claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 were canceled in Appellants’
amendment after the final rejection, the rejection of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Yuasa, Marimuthu, and
Wybenga (see Final Rej. 12) is not before us on appeal.
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner relies upon Yuasa for teaching a method of
dynamically managing and automatically configuring virtual local area
networks (VLANs) by dynamically including establishing first and second
broadcast domains having first and second VLANs, respectively, and
segregating a third broadcast domain into fourth and fifth broadcast
domains, wherein the fourth domain includes the first VLAN and the fifth

1 Separate patentability under § 103(a) is not argued for claims 15, 19, and
20 rejected under § 103(a), and Appellants only present arguments in the
briefs as to the rejection of claims 1 and 5-7 (see App. Br. 9-17; Reply Br. 4-
5). Because Appellants only present arguments relating to the merits of
Yuasa and Marimuthu relating to claims 1 and 5-7, and pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we consider claims 1, 6, and 7
to be representative of claims 15, 19, and 20, respectively. In view of the
foregoing, our discussion is limited to Appellants’ arguments as to the
rejection of claims 1 and 5-7 under § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423

4
broadcast domain includes the second VLAN (see, e.g., claim 1). Ans. 3-4
and 18.
The Examiner relies upon Marimuthu for teaching a method of
dynamically reconfiguring VLANs including merging two VLANs into a
new broadcast domain, and reconfiguring the VLANs in any desired or
suitable fashion (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner then determines that it would
have been obvious to modify Yuasa’s method of dynamically managing and
configuring VLANs with Marimuthu’s method of merging in order to
prevent network problems unique to VLANs (Ans. 5 (citing Marimuthu, col.
3, ll. 11-29)). The Examiner also determines that it would have been
obvious to disconnect the external bridge and revert the VLAN
configurations back into separate broadcast domains (e.g., fourth and fifth
broadcast domains) after the merger of VLANs, as desired by a network
user/administrator (Ans. 17 (citing Marimuthu, col. 2, ll. 20-26; col. 3, ll. 11-
29; col. 4, l. 45 to col. 5, l. 22; col. 10, ll. 60-63)).
Appellants’ Contentions
(A) Appellants contend (App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2-4) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Yuasa and Marimuthu for
numerous reasons, including:
(1) Yuasa and Marimuthu fail to teach or suggest segregating a
previously established broadcast domain, which replaced two other domains,
into a plurality of broadcast domains, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9 and
12; Reply Br. 2-3);
(2) Yuasa’s disclosed managing of VLANs is not equivalent to the
claimed segregating (App. Br. 9-11); and
Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423

5
(3) Yuasa and Marimuthu fail to teach or suggest “after establishing
the third broadcast domain, segregating the third broadcast domain into a
fourth broadcast domain and a fifth broadcast domain, wherein the fourth
broadcast domain includes the first VLAN and the fifth broadcast domain
includes the second VLAN,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 12-13; Reply
Br. 3-4).
(B) Appellants also contend (App. Br. 13-17; Reply Br. 4-5) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting individual claims 5, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yuasa and
Marimuthu for numerous reasons specific to those individual claims,
including:
With Regard to Claim 5
(1) Yuasa fails to teach or suggest segregating a broadcast domain by
removing a node from a broadcast domain, as recited in claim 5 (App. Br.
13);
(2) Yuasa’s column 10 discloses a terminal move, and not broadcast
domain segregation as recited in claim 5 (Reply Br. 4);
With Regard to Claims 6 and 19
(3) Yuasa’s description of a center line concentrator connected to a
high speed trunk LAN, or the existence of high speed trunk lines, does not
teach or suggest segregating the third broadcast domain by removing the
trunk between the first and second broadcast domain (App. Br. 15; Reply Br.
5);
Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423

6
With Regard to Claims 7 and 20
(4) the existence of high speed trunk lines in Yuasa does not teach or
suggest segregating a broadcast domain by stopping propagation of a
domain discriminator (App. Br. 16-17);
(5) claim 7 is not directed to trunks (Reply Br. 5); and
(6) Yuasa and Marimuthu fail to teach or suggest stopping
propagation of a domain discriminator from a first node to a second node, as
recited in claim 7 (Reply Br. 5).
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the following four issues are
presented on appeal:
(1) Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 15 as being
obvious over Yuasa and Marimuthu because the combination of Yuasa and
Marimuthu fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 at issue?
(2) Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 because the
combination of Yuasa and Marimuthu fails to teach or suggest segregating a
third broadcast domain by removing a node from the third broadcast domain,
as recited in claim 5?
(3) Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 19 because the
combination of Yuasa and Marimuthu fails to teach or suggest segregating a
third broadcast domain by removing a trunk between the first and second
domains, as recited in claim 6?
(4) Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 and 20 because the
combination of Yuasa and Marimuthu fails to teach or suggest segregating
the third broadcast domain by stopping propagation of a domain
Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423

7
discriminator from a first node in the first broadcast domain to a second
node in the second broadcast domain, as recited in claim 7?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-17) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 2-5) that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred with
respect to the rejection of claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 (see supra Appellants’
contentions (B)(3)-(6)). The combination of Yuasa and Marimuthu fails to
teach or suggest segregating a broadcast domain by removing a trunk, or by
stopping propagation of a domain discriminator from a first node to a second
node. The Examiner relies upon Yuasa as teaching high-speed trunk lines,
registration tables, and routing tables of switches used in managing a virtual
group (see Ans. 5-6 and 19-20). However, we find that none of the columns
and lines cited by the Examiner disclose, teach, or suggest segregating a
broadcast domain by removing a trunk, or by stopping propagation of a
domain discriminator from a first node to a second node.
However, we disagree with Appellants’ conclusions regarding claims
1, 5, and 15 (see supra Appellants’ contentions (A)(1)-(3), (B)(1), and
(B)(2)). With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 15, we adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, as well as the Advisory Action (Advisory
Action, mailed Dec. 8, 2008), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-
Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423

8
19). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner as to the
rejection of claims 1, 5, and 15.
Claims 1 and 15
With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 15, we disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion, and we concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner (Ans. 3-17) that the subject matter of claims 1 and 15 is taught or
suggested by the combination of Yuasa and Marimuthu.
With regard to claim 1, Yuasa discloses dynamically managing and
automatically configuring a network (i.e., broadcast domain) with VLANs
including segmenting (i.e., segregating) a network (i.e., broadcast domain)
(Figs. 4-6; col. 1, ll. 5-41; col. 9, l. 3 to col. 10, l. 33) by moving terminals,
moving LAN switches, and dynamically updating a virtual group routing
table to make topology changes (col. 9, ll. 3-15; col. 19, l. 51 to col. 20, l.
53; col. 79, ll. 42-46). Yuasa provides dynamic changes to the network and
virtual network switching system by “mapping logical network segments to
physical traffic segments for enabling dynamic reconfiguration” (col. 1, ll.
30-32), “enabling customization of network configuration, function, and
service to suit the user such as a network administrator” (col. 1, ll. 34-36),
and “automatically reconfiguring a network” (col. 1, ll. 21-22). Yuasa
discloses a method to provide “automatic configuration” (col. 10, ll. 21 and
33) by allocating traffic bands (i.e., broadcast domains) “whereby the virtual
group agent executes dynamic automatic configuration management” (col. 9,
ll. 11-14). Because “segmenting” is equivalent to “segregating,” Yuasa’s
segmenting of the broadcast domains and VLANs is encompassed by the
segregation of the third broadcast domain into fourth and fifth broadcast
domains, as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423

9
Marimuthu discloses merging and reconfiguring VLANs or the
hardware in any way desired (Figs. 2-6; col. 2, l. 35 to col. 3, l. 29; col. 4, ll.
51-53; col. 10, l. 60 to col. 11, l. 3). Specifically, Marimuthu discloses “a
method and apparatus for dynamically reconfiguring virtual LANs of a
network device [to] prevent[] network problems . . . that would otherwise
result from the given VLAN definition and/or the particular network
configuration” (col. 3, ll. 12-16). Marimuthu further discloses that “[a] user
or network administrator may reconfigure the VLANs or the hardware as
desired” (col. 3, ll. 28-29), and may do so using “a programmable VLAN
definition section 112 for defining any groupings of the ports 104 as
desired” (col. 4, ll. 51-53). “Such merging eliminates the potential problems
to achieve a working network without introducing any new network
problems” (col. 3, ll. 23-25).
We agree with the Examiner that Marimuthu teaches or suggests
performing modifications to the domains and VLANs after establishing a
third broadcast domain, i.e., reconfiguring (Ans. 17), and Yuasa teaches or
suggests segregating a domain into two domains and VLANs (Ans. 18-19).
We also agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to (i)
modify Yuasa’s method of dynamically managing and configuring VLANs
with Marimuthu’s method of merging in order to prevent network problems
unique to VLANs (Ans. 5 citing Marimuthu, col. 3, ll. 11-29), and (ii)
disconnect the external bridge and revert the VLAN configurations back into
separate broadcast domains (e.g., fourth and fifth broadcast domains) after
the merger of VLANs, as desired by a network user/administrator (Ans. 17
(citing Marimuthu, col. 2, ll. 20-26; col. 3, ll. 11-29; col. 4, l. 45 to col. 5, l.
22; col. 10, ll. 60-63)). The method of dynamically and automatically
Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423

10
configuring and reconfiguring domains and VLANs taught by both Yuasa
and Marimuthu, together with the segregating disclosed by Yuasa and the
merging disclosed by Marimuthu, teaches or suggests the method of
managing VLANs as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 5
With regard to the rejection of claim 5, we disagree with Appellants’
conclusion, and we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner
(Ans. 5 and 18-19) that the subject matter of claim 5 is taught or suggested
by the combination of Yuasa and Marimuthu.
With regard to claim 5, Yuasa discloses dynamically managing a
broadcast domain including VLANs (col. 1, ll. 5-41; col. 9, l. 3 to col. 10, l.
33), including segregating a broadcast domain by changing LAN switches of
a terminal or moving a terminal from a home switch (col. 9, ll. 3-15; col. 19,
l. 51 to col. 20, l. 53). Marimuthu discloses merging and reconfiguring
VLANs or the hardware in any way desired (Figs. 2-6; col. 2, l. 35 to col. 3,
l. 29; col. 4, ll. 51-53; col. 10, l. 60 to col. 11, l. 3). We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 18-19) that it would have been obvious to remove an
offending bridge node and return the VLANs back to the original segregated
configuration, if so desired.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in determining that Yuasa and
Marimuthu are combinable, or that the combination of Yuasa and
Marimuthu teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 1, 5, and 15 at issue.
Appeal 2009-014888
Application 11/115,423

11
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 5, and 15 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the combination of Yuasa and Marimuthu.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) is reversed.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj