Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2017

14061535 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2017)

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.
14/061,535 10/23/2013 Fei Li HW 83077062US04 1215
74365 7590 09/14/2017
Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
MILLS, DONALD L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2017 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing @ slatermatsil. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FEI LI and YIZHOU LI
Appeal 2017-004239
Application 14/061,53 s1
Technology Center 2400
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, BETH Z. SHAW, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 12.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Dependent claims 4—6, 10, and 11, which constitute the remaining pending
claims, have been indicated as allowable. Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2017-004239
Application 14/061,535
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to improving performance of large L2
networks in data center environments by increasing the number of supported
service instances in a TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
network. Spec. Tflf 13—17, 77. Claims 1, 7, and 12 are independent claims,
and they are the only claims at issue on this appeal. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A service instance mapping method implemented
by a Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
switch in a TRILL network, comprising:
correlating, by the TRILL switch, a virtual local area
network (VLAN) interface with a service instance, and wherein
the service instance is represented by a VLAN ID of a user packet
received by the VLAN interface, in the TRILL network different
service instances are isolated by means of layer-2 isolation;
generating, by the TRILL switch, a TRILL packet,
wherein the TRILL packet has a 2-byte outer tag and a 2-byte
inner tag both following an inner MAC header that follows a
TRILL header of the TRILL packet, a service label of 24 bits is
carried by the outer tag and the inner tag and wherein 12 bits in
the outer tag store higher 12 bits of the service label, and 12 bits
in the inner tag store lower 12 bits of the service label, and
wherein the service label is mapped from the service instance,
and wherein the service label of 24 bits is an extended service
label identifying the service instance; and
sending, by the TRILL switch, the TRILL packet to
another TRILL switch in the TRILL network.
App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2017-004239
Application 14/061,535
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,7, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
unpatentable over Ghanwani (US 2012/0063316 Al, published Mar. 15,
2012).
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in interpreting the recited description of the
service instance and the packet format to be non-functional descriptive
material?
ANALYSIS
Rejecting independent claims 1,7, and 12, the Examiner finds
Ghanwani anticipates the claims. Final Act. 2—A. In doing so, the Examiner
interprets certain limitations as non-functional descriptive material, and does
not accord those limitations patentable weight. Id. These limitations include
the attributes of the “service instance,” and more particularly the limitation
“wherein the service instance is represented by a VLAN ID of a user packet
received by the VLAN interface, in the TRILL network different service
instances are isolated by means of layer-2 isolation.” Final Act. 2—3. The
Examiner also interprets the description of the recited TRILL packet as non­
functional descriptive material. Final Act. 3. This description includes the
limitation:
wherein the TRILL packet has a 2-byte outer tag and a 2-byte
inner tag both following an inner MAC header that follows a
TRILL header of the TRILL packet, a service label of 24 bits is
carried by the outer tag and the inner tag and wherein 12 bits in
3
Appeal 2017-004239
Application 14/061,535
the outer tag store higher 12 bits of the service label, and 12 bits
in the inner tag store lower 12 bits of the service label, and
wherein the service label is mapped from the service instance,
and wherein the service label of 24 bits is an extended service
label identifying the service instance.
See Final Act. 3.
Appellants contend these limitations do not constitute non-functional
descriptive matter, and as a result, the Examiner has improperly read these
limitations out of the claims. App. Br. 5—8. More specifically, Appellants
argue the limitations excluded by the Examiner impact how the TRILL
network operates. App Br. 6—8. Appellants further argue when properly
construed to include all of the recited limitations, Ghanwani does not
disclose the limitations of “a 2-byte outer tag and a 2-byte inner tag both
following an inner MAC header that follows a TRILL header of the TRILL
packet,” “the service instance is represented by a VLAN ID of a user packet
received by the VLAN interface,” and “the service label is mapped from the
service instance.” App. Br. 8—9.
We agree with Appellants the Examiner has erred by not according
patentable weight to the recited limitations. In particular, we agree with
Appellants that the limitations recited in the claim impact how data is
processed and/or manipulated by the by a computing device. The limitations
defining the packet structure influence the operation of the TRILL network.
As such, they are functional in nature. See In re Lowery, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (finding limitations functional where “claims require
specific electronic structural elements which impart a physical organization
on the information stored in memory”).
Having determined that the limitations in the claims are entitled to
patentable weight, we also agree with Appellants that the cited portions of
4
Appeal 2017-004239
Application 14/061,535
Ghanwani do not disclose each and every limitation recited in the
independent claims. The Examiner does not identify structures in Ghanwani
that correspond to the claimed packet structure. Instead, the Examiner finds:
The claim merely requires an ordering, or functionally
equivalent, of data within packet. The prior art teaches an
equivalent number of bytes and bits. Therefore the claim
limitation is disclosed.
Ans. 8. This approach is insufficient to establish anticipation, as anticipation
requires discloses of each and every limitation in the claim, arranged as in
the claim. Net Moneyin, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). Here, Examiner does not explain, nor is it apparent to us, how
the “equivalent number of bytes and bits” shown in Ghanwani’s TRILL
network packet is identical to:
TRILL packet has a 2-byte outer tag and a 2-byte inner tag both
following an inner MAC header that follows a TRILL header of
the TRILL packet, a service label of 24 bits is carried by the outer
tag and the inner tag and wherein 12 bits in the outer tag store
higher 12 bits of the service label, and 12 bits in the inner tag
store lower 12 bits of the service label, and wherein the service
label is mapped from the service instance, and wherein the
service label of 24 bits is an extended service label identifying
the service instance,
as recited in the claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e). In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“If
examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of
unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the
patent.”).
5
Appeal 2017-004239
Application 14/061,535
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, and 12 is reversed.
REVERSED
6