Ex Parte Modi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13253687 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/253,687 10/05/2011 Prashant Modi
56436 7590 08/02/2016
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.
82856493 9327
EXAMINER
ZELE, KRISTA MICHELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@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 PRASHANT MODI and KATHRYN HAMPTON
Appeal2015-000340
Application 13/253,687
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. 1\10RGAN, SHARON PENICK, and JOHN R. !(ENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000340
Application 13/253,687
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from rejections of claims 1-
11, 19-26, and32. (App. Br. 2). Claims 12-18, 27-31, and33-35 have
been canceled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The claims are directed to a key-configured topology with connection
management. Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
A method, comprising:
in a first node, receiving from a second node a first request for a
port mapping data that describes a relationship between a
resource on the first node and a port on the first node;
selectively providing the port mapping data to the second node
based on the presence and validity of a key in the first request,
where the key is configured to establish that the second node is a
member of a key-configured topology group that includes the
first node;
receiving from the second node a second request to establish a
connection between the first node and the second node via a first
networking protocol, where the connection facilitates accessing
the resource;
selectively establishing the connection based on the presence and
validity of the key in the second request; and
selectively providing a notification to the second node that the
connection was established.
2
Appeal2015-000340
Application 13/253,687
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Guenthner et al.
Go land
Elzur et al.
Hunt et al.
US 6,360,262 Bl
US 2003/0056114 Al
US 2004/0093411 Al
US 7,257,731 B2
REJECTIONS
Mar. 9, 2002
Mar. 20, 2003
May 13, 2004
Aug. 14, 2007
Claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Guenthner, Goland
and Elzur. (Ans. 2.)
Claims 3, 26, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Guenthner, Goland, Elzur, and Hunt.
(Ans. 2.)
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Guenthner and Go land. (Ans. 2.)
ANALYSIS
We address claim 19 first because most issues raised by Appellants
concern that claim. We address the remaining claims in order in groups.
Claim 19
Appellants argue that the combination of Guenthner and Go land fails
to teach or suggest four limitations in claim 19. Appellants also argue that
the Examiner erred in combining those references.
3
Appeal2015-000340
Application 13/253,687
1. In a First Node, Receiving from a Second Node a First
Request for Port Mapping Data
Appellants argue that the combination of Guenthner and Go land does
not teach or suggest "in a first node, receiving from a second node a first
request for a port mapping data." (App. Br. 9.) The Examiner finds that, in
Guenthner, the incoming request to a resource router from a web client and
the resource router's redirection response satisfy this limitation. (Ans. 4--5,
citing Guenthner Fig. 6, 4:25-28.) Appellants argue that the redirection
response does not contain port mapping data because Guenthner
distinguishes between redirection responses and port mapping data and
explicitly states that port mapping data is not provided to the client. (App.
Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-3; Guenthner 8: 1-5 1.) We are not persuaded by this
argument. The Examiner sets forth how the redirection response provides
address and port information that maps the port that the client request was
received on at the resource router to the server in the redirection response.
(Ans. 4--5, citing Guenthner 6:10-13, RFC 2396, RFC 2616.) Appellants do
not set forth any persuasive arguments or evidence demonstrating errors in
that showing. (Reply Br. 2-3.)
We also do not agree that Guenthner teaches that no mapping data is
to be provided to the client. Guenthner does teach that it is not necessary to
propagate all server object/port mapping data to the client as Guenthner does
with the servers because the servers control the client conversation that
(Guenthner 7: 64--8: 5.) The fact that the resource router in Guenthner does
not need to propagate the entire server object/port mapping data to the client,
1 Appellants cite lines 64--67 of column 8 of Guenthner, but the passage at
issue appears at lines 1-5.
4
Appeal2015-000340
Application 13/253,687
however, does not mean that the resource router fails to provide the mapping
data as in claim 19, which does not require the mapping of all server objects
to all ports. Instead, the recited mapping merely must describe a relationship
between a resource on a first node and a port on a first node. (See Claim
19.) As the Examiner sets forth, and Appellants have presented no
persuasive arguments or evidence to the contrary, the redirection response
contains such mapping data. (Ans. 4--5; Reply Br. 2-3.)
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's mapping for this disputed
limitation is erroneous because the resource router and the server identified
by the redirection request are not part of the same node (a first node). (App.
Br. 12-13.) We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner sets
forth how Guenthner teaches or suggests having both the resource router and
the server with the resource on one node and sets forth evidence one
ordinarily skilled in the art would view them as being one node or as
suggesting having them on one node. (Ans. 3, citing Schoenberger Fig. 2B,
i-f 14.) And Appellants present no persuasive arguments or evidence
demonstrating error in this showing. (Reply Br. 2-3.)
2. Receiving . .. a Second Request to Establish a
Connection ... via a First Networking Protocol
Appellants argue that the combination of Guenthner and Go land fails
to teach or suggest "receiving from a second node a second request to
establish a connection between the first node and the second node via a first
networking protocol, where the connection facilitates accessing the
resource." (App. Br. 13.) We are not persuaded by this argument. As the
Examiner correctly finds, after receiving the redirection, the client (the
second node) in Guenthner sends a request to the server to which it is
redirected (to the first node). (Ans. 6, citing Guenthner 6: 13-15.) In
5
Appeal2015-000340
Application 13/253,687
response, the server supplies the requested object via a connection that is
established using the networking protocol HTTP. (Ans. 6-7, citing
Guenthner 6: 1-33.) Appellants present no persuasive arguments or evidence
demonstrating that these cited disclosures fail to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. (Reply Br. 2-3).
3. Selectively Providing a Notification to the Second Node
that the Connection Was Established
Appellants argue that the combination of Guenthner and Go land does
not teach or suggest selectively providing a notification to the second node
that the connection was established. (App. Br. 9.) We are not persuaded by
this argument. The Examiner sets forth how Guenthner teaches or suggests
using TCP/IP with which a SYN/ ACK message, which selectively notifies
the client if a connection has been established. (Ans. 7-8, citing RFC 793,
p. 27, Guenthner Fig. 6.) Appellants have not provided any persuasive
arguments or evidence demonstrating any errors in this showing. (Reply Br.
2--'3.)
4. Selectively Providing Port Mapping Data
Appellants argue that the combination of Guenthner and Go land does
not teach or suggest "selectively providing the port mapping data to the
second node based on the presence and validity of a key in the first request
.... "(App. Br. 15.) In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner relies
on Go land for this limitation, but Goland does not selectively provide port
mapping data. (Id.) We are not persuaded by this argument because it is not
directed to the rejection the Examiner made. The Examiner relied on
Guenthner for teaching and suggesting providing port mapping data. (Final
Act. 2.) The Examiner relied on Goland for selectively providing
information based on the presence and validity of a key. (Final Act. 3.)
6
Appeal2015-000340
Application 13/253,687
Therefore, the rejection cannot be overcome by merely attacking Goland
individually for not teaching or suggesting port mapping data when the
Examiner relies on the combination of Guenthner and Go land to teach or
suggest the disputed recitation. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed.
Cir. 2012).
5. Combining Guenthner and Goland
Appellants argue that Guenthner and Goland should not be combined.
(App. Br. 17.) We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner
provides articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for combining
these references. (Ans. 3.) Appellants present no persuasive evidence or
arguments demonstrating error in that reasoning. (Reply Br. 2-3.)
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 19.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 20-25
Appellants present the same arguments for claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 20-
25 as for claim 19. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--
11, and 20-25. (App. Br. 17-21.)
Claims 3, 26, and 32
Appellants argue that claims 3, 26, and 32 are patentable for the same
reasons as for claims 1 and 19. As discussed, we are not persuaded that
claims 1 and 19 are patentable.
In addition, Appellants argue that the cited prior art fails to teach or
suggest the limitation added by claim 3 to the recitation of claim 1 and
corresponding limitations in claims 26 and 32. In particular, Appellants
argue that the Examiner relies on Hunt for this limitation but Hunt does not
describe protocols that are different from one another and does not disclose a
second protocol not allowing remote direct memory access to the first node
7
Appeal2015-000340
Application 13/253,687
via the port mapped to the resource. (App. Br. 22-23.) We are not
persuaded by this argument. The Examiner sets forth the combined cited
prior art teaches or suggests the disputed limitation by, inter alia, Hunt's
disclosure of failover from a primary protocol to a secondary protocol and
Ezra's disclosure of a protocol that supports RDMA (remote direct memory
access) and a protocol that does not natively support RDMA. (Ans. 8-9.)
Appellants have not set forth any persuasive evidence or arguments
demonstrating any errors with this analysis. (Reply Br. 2-3.)
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 26, and 32.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-11, 19-26, and 32.
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) (2013).
AFFIRMED
8