Ex Parte LaVigne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2012

10813730 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRUCE EDWARD LAVIGNE,
PAUL T. CONGDON, and MARK GOOCH
____________

Appeal 2010-007400
Application 10/813,730
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 4-14, and 16-23. Claims 2, 3, and 15 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2010-007400
Application 10/813,730

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to remote mirroring of network traffic
(Spec. 1:23-24).
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A method for secure remote mirroring of network traffic,
the method comprising:
receiving a data packet to be remotely mirrored by an
entry device pre-configured with a mirroring destination
address to which to mirror the data packet;
forwarding the data packet in unencrypted form towards
an original destination address indicated in the data packet;
encrypting a copy of the data packet to form an encrypted
packet;
incrementing an identifier to indicate a position of the
encrypted packet within an order of packets received by an exit
device;
generating and adding a first header and a second header
to the encrypted data packet to encapsulate the encrypted data
packet, wherein the first header includes an Internet Protocol
(IP) destination address corresponding to the mirroring
destination address and said identifier, the second header
includes a media access control (MAC) destination address, and
the encapsulated encrypted packet comprises an IP-
encapsulated encrypted packet including the IP destination
address; and
forwarding the encapsulated encrypted packet to an exit
device associated with the mirroring destination address.

Appeal 2010-007400
Application 10/813,730

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 7-11, 14, and 16-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regan (US 2004/0213232 A1,
Oct. 28, 2004), Inada (US 6,775,769 B1, Aug. 10, 2004), and Amara (US
6,839,338 B1, Jan. 4, 2005). (Ans. 4-16).
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Regan, Inada, Amara, and Kojima (US 5,280,476,
Jan. 18, 1994). (Ans. 17).
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Regan, Inada, Amara, and Classon (US 6,700,867 B2,
Mar. 2, 2004). (Ans. 18).
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Regan, Inada, Amara, and Engwer (US 6,947,483 B2,
Sep. 20, 2005). (Ans. 18).

Appellants’ Contentions
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because neither Regan, Inada, nor
Amara teaches or suggests “an identifier to indicate a position of the
encrypted packet within an order of packets received by an exit device,” and
a “first header [that] includes an Internet Protocol (IP) destination address
corresponding to the mirroring destination address and said identifier” (App.
Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 4-5). Appellants admit that “Amara discloses in Fig. 4
an IP header having a sequence number field 210,” but assert that Amara
and Inada fail to teach or suggest a packet having a header that includes both
an IP destination address and an identifier for “indicat[ing] the position of
Appeal 2010-007400
Application 10/813,730

4
encrypted packets within an order of packets received by an exit device,” as
recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5).
With respect to the remaining claims, Appellants assert the
patentability of independent claims 14, 17, 20, and 21, and dependent claims
4-13, 16, 18-19, and 22-23 based on the same reasons asserted for claim 1.
(App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 5-6).

Issue on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
the cited references because the references fail to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations?

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1,4, 7-11,14, and 16-23
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions and adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 19-20). We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.

Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s factual findings about
Regan on pages 4-5 of the Answer. We will take those findings as conceded
by Appellants. Thus, our analysis is focused on the teachings of Inada and
Amara.
Appeal 2010-007400
Application 10/813,730

5
The Examiner finds that Inada explicitly teaches using a media access
control (MAC) destination address (Ans. 20 (citing Inada, col. 11, ll.43-52)).
The Examiner also finds that the MAC address includes an Internet Protocol
(IP) destination address, and would thus correspond to the claimed first
header. Ans. 5-6. Amara explicitly discloses an IP header that contains a
sequence number field that is used to keep track of each data packet. (See
Amara, col. 8, ll. 5-24, and Fig. 4; Ans. 6). We further agree with the
Examiner that it “would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains to have a sequence number [that] is used to keep track of each data
packet” (Ans. 20) and accordingly this sequence number is an identifier
indicating packet position information. We thus find that the combination of
the MAC address of Inada and the sequence number of Amara teaches or
suggests the claimed subject matter.
Appellants have not separately argued claims 4, 7-11,14, and 16-23
and thus, these claims fall with exemplary claim 1.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 5 and 6, 12, and 13
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over various
combinations of Regan, Inada, and Amara with (a) Kojima (claims 5 and 6,
App. Br. 14); (b) Classon (claim 12, App. Br. 15); and (c) Engwer (claim 13,
App. Br. 16) because Kojima/Classon/Engwer do not cure the deficiencies
of Regan, Inada, Amara. As set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded
us the Examiner erred. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the
combination of Regan, Inada, Amara and Kojima/Classon/Engwer teaches
or suggests the invention as recited in claims 5, 6, 12, and 13.
Appeal 2010-007400
Application 10/813,730

6

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 7-11, 14, and 16-
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regan, Inada, and
Amara.
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regan, Inada, Amara, and
Kojima.
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regan, Inada, Amara, and Classon.
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Regan, Inada, Amara, and Engwer.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4-14, and 16-23 is
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc