Ex Parte Kotalwar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

13718379 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

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.
13/718,379 12/18/2012 Jayant Kotalwar ALC 3480-CON 8402
76614 7590
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
12/29/2016 EXAMINER
ZHAO, WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp @ alcatel-lucent, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAYANT KOTALWAR and
VENUGOPAL HEMIGE
Appeal 2015-008020
Application 13/718,379
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3—10, 16, and 18—20. Non-Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Zelig et al. (US 2007/0268915 Al; Nov. 22, 2007). Non-
Final Act. 3—6.
1 The Examiner objected to claims 2, 11—15, and 17 as being dependent
upon a rejected base claim, but indicated these claims would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims. Non-Final Act. 10.
Appeal 2015-008020
Application 13/718,379
Claims 4—6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Zelig and Iwata (US 6,385,201 Bl; May 7, 2002). Non-Final Act. 7—9.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Zelig, Iwata, and Hu et al. (US 2009/0080328 Al; Mar. 26, 2009). Non-
Final Act. 9—10.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “routing of packets in a
communications network and the balancing of server load.” Spec. 12.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method of routing packets in a communications
network by a network node, the method comprising:
receiving, at the network node, a packet including a
destination address of the packet;
resolving the destination address of the packet to a first
address of a first receiving node;
identifying a second address of a second receiving node
as being associated with the first address; and
transmitting the packet to both the first address and the
second address.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1,3,7,9,16,18, and 19 by Zelig
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 9
The Examiner finds Zelig teaches all limitations of claim 1. Non-
Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner finds Zelig discloses the recited (claim 1)
2
Appeal 2015-008020
Application 13/718,379
“transmitting the packet to both the first address and the second address.”
Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Zelig 140).
Appellants present the following principal argument: “Paragraph
[0038] [of Zelig] does not disclose the transmission of any packets. Instead,
this paragraph discloses only that multiple outgoing ports are joined together
in a LAG [(link aggregation group)].” App. Br. 8. “[E]ach packet is
transmitted over one and only one link within the LAG.” App. Br. 9 (citing
Zelig 140). ‘\E\ven when a packet is being flooded over all outgoing links,
Zelig is careful to make sure that the packet is transmitted over only one of
the links within each LAG.” App. Br. 9 (citing Zelig 141).
In response, the Examiner explains:
Zelig teaches transmitting the packet to the first address or the
second address though not explicitly disclosing transmitting the
packet to both addresses. But, in telecommunications art,
“transmitting the packet to both the first address and the second
address” is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. [§] 102 based on the
teaching of Zelig.
Ans. 3^4. The Examiner further explains a packet tagged for flooding is
transmitted over all ports. Ans. 5.
Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding Zelig
describes the recited (claim 1) “transmitting the packet to both the first
address and the second address.” We also do not agree with the Examiner’s
further explanation in the Answer on pages 3—5.
Zelig (| 38) discloses multiple outgoing ports joined together in a
LAG. Zelig (140) (emphasis added) discloses:
If the output interface indicated by the record is a LAG group,
the packet processor selects one of the physical ports in the
LAG group (using a hash function, for example), and tags the
packet for transmission via the selected port. The packet
3
Appeal 2015-008020
Application 13/718,379
processor then passes the tagged packet to switching core 34,
which conveys the packet to egress path 56 of the appropriate
port.
Zelig (141) (emphasis added) discloses: “For each LAG group serving the
VPLS instance, however, the flooded packet is transmitted via only one port
in the group.”
Thus, Zelig’s Figure 2 discloses details of a line card (138), but does
not discuss packet transmission. Zelig also discloses the packet being
processed is transmitted to one port in the LAG group (140). Zelig further
discloses that, even in the case of a flooded packet, the flooded packet is
only transmitted to one port in the LAG group (141).
We, therefore, find Zelig’s transmission of a packet to one port in a
LAG group does not disclose the recited “transmitting the packet to both the
first address and the second address” (emphases added) (claim 1).
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 1, or claims 3 and 7, which depend from claim 1.
For the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1,
Appellants have also persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding Zelig
describes claim 9’s limitations “transmitting the packet over a first link of
the plurality of links associated with the link aggregation group; and
transmitting the packet over a second link of the plurality of links associated
with the link aggregation group.”
We, therefore, find Zelig’s transmission of a packet to one port in a
LAG group does not disclose the limitations recited in claim 9, and do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
4
Appeal 2015-008020
Application 13/718,379
Claims 16, 18, and 19
The Examiner finds Zelig describes all limitations of claim 16. Non-
Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds Zelig describes the recited (claim 16)
“determining, based on at least a portion of the packet, whether the receiving
node should process the packet [associated with a link aggregation group];
and if the receiving node should not process the packet [associated with a
link aggregation group], discarding the packet.” Non-Final Act. 6 (citing
Zelig 145); see also Ans. 6.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Zelig teaches discarding non-data packets. However, the
office action fails to establish that a non-data [packet] would be
associated with a link aggregation group. Thus, it does not
appear that Zelig teaches each and every claim element as
arranged in the claim.
Specifically, there is no allegation that Zelig would ever
discard a packet that is associated with a LAG; instead, it
appears that packets associated with LAGs are data packets that
would, as explained in para. [0045], be forwarded and not
discarded. See e.g., Zelig, para. [0008] and [0012] (explaining
that LAGs transport data traffic and data packets).
App. Br. 14.
Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Zelig
describes the claim 16 limitations “determining, based on at least a portion
of the packet, whether the receiving node should process the packet
[associated with a link aggregation group]; and if the receiving node should
not process the packet [associated with a link aggregation group], discarding
the packet.”
Zelig (145) (emphasis added) discloses:
The packet processor then decides what to do with the packet
that generated the new record, at a forwarding decision step 66.
5
Appeal 2015-008020
Application 13/718,379
If the packet is a data packet, it is forwarded to the appropriate
output port, at a forwarding step 68. Otherwise, the packet is
simply discarded, at a discard step 70.
Thus, Zelig (145) discloses a packet associated with a LAG is
forwarded, while a synchronization packet is discarded. See also Zelig 146
(discussing synchronization packets).
We, therefore, find that Zelig’s data packet forwarding and
synchronization packet discarding, which always forwards data packets
without making a determination with respect to the data packets, does not
disclose the limitations recited in claim 16.
Thus, we, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, or
claims 18 and 19, which depend from claim 16.2
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4—6, 8,10 and 20
over Zelig, Iwata, and Hu
Appellants argue claims 4—6, 8, 10 and 20 are allowable for their
dependency from the independent claims. Thus, we also find claims 4—6, 8,
10 and 20 allowable.
2 We express no opinion as to whether the claims the Examiner rejected as
being anticipated by Zelig would have been obvious over Zelig, or over the
combined teachings and suggestions of Zelig, Iwata, and Hu (or other
references). We leave any such further consideration to the Examiner.
Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th Ed.,
Rev. 9, Nov. 2015).
6
Appeal 2015-008020
Application 13/718,379
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—10, 16, and 18—20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7