Ex Parte Pacella et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

12624667 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
12/624,667 11/24/2009 Dante J. Pacella 20090539 8759
7590 05/02/201725537
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
TRAN, THINH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANTE J. PACELLA, NORMAN RICHARD SOLIS, and
HAROLD JASON SCHILLER
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,6671
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—5, 7—18, and 20—22. Claims 6 and 19
have been canceled. See App. Br. 22—28 (Claims App’x). We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Verizon
Communications Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to a router including a control
module and a line card. Spec. 120. The control module may collect and
maintain the routing information in a best routing information base (BRIB).
Id. The line card may receive packets from a network and forward the
packets to their destination based on routing information stored at a local
just-in-time-forwarding information base (JIT-FIB). Id. The local JIT-FIB
may include a portion of the BRIB and may act as a local cache of the BRIB
at the line card. Id. Claims 1 and 9, which are illustrative, read as follows:
1. A device comprising:
a line card including a memory that stores a local routing
table, configured to:
request a routing entry from a routing table,
receive the routing entry,
insert the routing entry in the local routing table, and
age out stale routing entries from the local routing
table; and
a control module that includes:
the routing table; and
a domain name server (DNS) database that includes
a list of DNS addresses, wherein the list of DNS addresses
includes an Internet Protocol address of an authoritative
DNS server, wherein the control module is configured to:
seed the local routing table with a routing
entry corresponding to the IP address, in the DNS
server database included in the control module, of
the authoritative DNS server; and
2
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
distribute the routing entry in the routing
table to the line card in response to the request from
the line card,
wherein the DNS server database is not a routing table.
9. A router comprising:
a line card including a memory that stores a local routing
table, configured to:
request a routing entry from a routing table,
receive the routing entry,
insert the routing entry in the local routing table, and
age out stale routing entries from the local routing
table; and
a control module including the routing table, configured
to:
distribute the routing entry in the routing table to the
line card in response to the request from the line card,
wherein the line card is further configured to:
receive a first packet;
identify the first packet as a domain name system
(DNS) request, and
wherein the control module is further configured to:
send a request to other routers to send copies of
replies to the DNS request to the router,
wherein the local routing table includes one of a local
forwarding information base (local FIB) or a local label
forwarding information base (local LFIB), and
wherein the routing table includes a best routing
information base (BRIB).
3
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Kwapnieswki et al. (US
2010/0080233 Al; published Apr. 1, 2010) (“Kwapniewski”), Christian et
al. (US 2009/0172192 Al; published July 2, 2009) (“Christian”), and
Kadambi et al. (US 6,707,817 Bl; issued Mar. 16, 2004) (“Kadambi”).
Final Act. 4—9.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kwapniewski, Christian, Kadambi,
and Sun et al. (US 2011/0075680 Al; published Mar. 31, 2011) (“Sun”).
Final Act. 9—10.
Claims 5 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kwapniewski, Christian, Kadambi,
and Goose et al. (US 2009/0274044 Al; published Nov. 5, 2009) (“Goose”).
Final Act. 10—12.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kwapniewski, Christian, Kadambi,
and Samprathi (US 2009/0238179 Al; published Sept. 24, 2009). Final
Act. 12-13.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kwapniewski, Christian, Kadambi,
and Joshi (US 2010/0061236 Al; published Mar. 11, 2010).2 Final Act. 13—
14.
2 Although the heading of the rejection indicates the rejection is only based
on Kwapniewski, Christian, and Joshi, the rejection states “as applied to
claim 3 above, and further in view of JOSHI.” Final Act. 13. Claim 3, from
which claim 8 depends, stands rejected based on Kwapniewski, Christian,
4
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kwapniewski, Christian, Kadambi,
and Ge et al. (US 2006/0083254 Al; published Apr. 20, 2006) (“Ge”).* * 3
Final Act. 14.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Kwapniewski and Morris (US
2010/0124220 Al; published May 20, 2010). Final Act. 15—21.
Claims 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kwapniewski, Morris, and Janneteau
et al. (US 2007/0253377 Al; published Nov. 1, 2007) (“Janneteau”). Final
Act. 21-23.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kwapniewski, Morris, and Joshi.
Final Act. 23—24.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kwapniewski,
Christian, and Kadambi teaches or suggests “wherein the control module is
configured to: seed the local routing table with a routing entry corresponding
and Kadambi. Final Act. 4. As such, we treat the omission of Kadambi
from the heading of the rejection as a harmless typographical error and treat
the rejection of claim 8 accordingly.
3 Although the heading of the rejection indicates the rejection is only based
on Kwapniewski, Christian, and Ge, the rejection states “as applied to claim
3 above, and further in view of GE et al.” Final Act. 14. Claim 3, from
which claim 14 depends, stands rejected based on Kwapniewski, Christian,
and Kadambi. Final Act. 4. As such, we treat the omission of Kadambi
from the heading of the rejection as a harmless typographical error and treat
the rejection of claim 14 accordingly.
5
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
to the IP address, in the DNS server database included in the control module,
of the authoritative DNS server . . . wherein the DNS server database is not a
routing table,” as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kwapniewski,
Christian, Kadambi, and Samprathi teaches or suggests “wherein the line
card is further configured to: prevent the routing entry corresponding to the
IP address of the authoritative DNS server from being aged out of the local
FIB,” as recited in claim 7?
Did the Examiner err in combining Kwapniewski, Christian,
Kadambi, and Samprathi?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kwapniewski
and Morris teaches or suggests “wherein the control module is further
configured to: send a request to other routers to send copies of replies to the
DNS request to the router,” as recited in claim 9?
Did the Examiner err in combining Kwapniewski and Morris?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Issue 1
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kwapniewski,
Christian, and Kadambi teaches or suggests “seed the local routing table
with a routing entry corresponding to the IP address, in the DNS server
database included in the control module, of the authoritative DNS server . . .
wherein the DNS server database is not a routing table,” as recited in claim
1?
6
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Kwapniewski
teaches each line card’s forwarding table may be initialized as empty and
initial packets are forwarded to a helper node. Final Act. 5 (citing
Kwapniewski || 36, 42, 48, 49). The Examiner finds because Kwapniewski
teaches the forwarding table is initially empty and initial packets are
forwarded to the helper node, Kwapniewski teaches or suggests “seed[ing]
the local routing table with a routing entry corresponding to the IP address
[of the helper node].” Id. The Examiner finds Christian describes a router
storing a BGP table (e.g., a domain name server (DNS) database) that
includes an IP address of an authoritative DNS server and the IP address.
Final Act. 6 (citing Christian || 24—26; Fig. 2). The Examiner finds
Christian further teaches using BGP advertisements to seed the IP address to
the router. Id. (citing Christian || 23—27; Fig. 2). The Examiner finds
Kadambi teaches separating entries in a routing table into two different
tables. Final Act. 8 (citing Kadambi 24:1—26). Based on these findings, the
Examiner concludes “it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the system and
method as taught by KADAMBI to split up the routing table entries to
different table for splitting up the routing table with DNS entries as in
CHRSITIAN and the routing table as in KWAPIEWSKI to provide separate
table for routing table and DNS table” so as to reduce the storage and
provide a faster lookup. Final Act. 7—8.
Appellants contend the combination of Kwapniewski, Christian, and
Kadambi fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because:
1. Kwapniewski teaches a line card of a router updates its
forwarding table based on information stored in the router’s
routing table and updating a forwarding table, as taught by
7
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
Kwapniewski, does not teach or suggest “seed the local
routing table with a routing entry corresponding to the IP
address,” as recited in claim 1 because claim 1 requires
seeding a local routing table and Kwapniewski’s forwarding
table is not a routing table. App. Br. 11 (citing Kwapniewski
1136, 42, and 48-51).
2. Kwapniewski teaches that the information used to update the
forwarding table is obtained from a routing table and not from
a DNS server database that is not a routing table, as required
by claim 1. App. Br. 12.
3. Kadambi teaches splitting a single address table into two
tables and splitting a single address table into two separate
tables, as taught by Kadambi, does not teach or suggest that a
DNS server database is not a routing table because “[t]he
tables of Kadambi ha[ve] absolutely nothing to do with the
‘DNS server database is not a routing table’ feature of claim
1.” App. Br. 12.
We do not find Appellants’ first contention persuasive. Kwapniewski
teaches a processor in a router maintains a routing table that contains a
representation of the network topology state information and stores the
current information about the best known paths to destination networks.
Kwapniewski 132. Kwapniewski teaches that a version of this routing table
is maintained in all line cards so that lookups on incoming packets can be
performed locally on each line card. Id. Kwapniewski further teaches that
the version of the routing table maintained in all line cards “is what is
referred to as the line card’s forwarding table.” Kwapniewski 132.
Kwapniewski further teaches that for each route (e.g., a routing entry), the
forwarding table may store “the outgoing port number, address of a next
hop, and some statistics” (Kwapniewski 132), which is consistent with
Appellants’ Specification’s description of “local JIT-FIB 512” (see Spec.
8
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
1 51—53; Fig. 5C) upon which Appellants rely for providing support for the
claimed local routing table (App. Br. 4 (citing Spec. 127)).
We do not find Appellants’ second and third contentions persuasive
because, as discussed supra, the Examiner does not rely on Kwapniewski
and Christian for teaching or suggesting “wherein the DNS server database
is not a routing table”; but rather relies on Kadambi for teaching or
suggesting this limitation as Kadambi separates entries in the routing tables
into two separate tables. Final Act. 7—8. Appellants’ contentions fail to
address the combined teachings of the references and, therefore, are
unpersuasive of error. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1; and claims 3, 4, 13, 20, and 22, which depend from claim
1 and are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 12—13.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 21 depend from claim 1 and stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kwapniewski, Christian, Kadambi, and
various additional references. Appellants do not argue these claims
separately with particularity but, instead, rely on the arguments presented for
claim 1. See App. Br. 13, 16—17. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 21 for the reasons
discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Claim 7
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Kwapniewski, Christian, Kadambi, and Samprathi teaches or suggests
“wherein the line card is further configured to: prevent the routing entry
9
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
corresponding to the IP address of the authoritative DNS server from being
aged out of the local FIB,” as recited in claim 7?
Appellants contend the combination of Kwapniewski, Christian,
Kadambi, and Samprathi fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
App. Br. 14—16; Reply Br. 4—5. In particular, Appellants contend:
Samprathi arguably teaches preventing the aging out of a
destination MAC address from a control register. However,
preventing a MAC address from being aged out from a control
register does not disclose or suggest “preventing the routing
entry corresponding to the IP address of the authoritative DNS
server from being aged out of the local FIB” in conjunction with
“age out stale routing entries from the local routing table,” as
required by claim 7 and claim 1 [from which claim 7 depends].
That is, nothing in Samprathi discloses or suggests that the MAC
address, which may be prevented by being aged out, can be
construed to correspond to the IP address of the authoritative
DNS server, as would be required by claim 7.
App. Br. 14—15 (citing Samprathi 130).
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. As discussed
supra, the Examiner finds the combination of Kwapniewski, Christian, and
Kadambi teaches or suggests “seed[ing] the local routing table with a routing
entry corresponding to the IP address, in the DNS server database included
in the control module, of the authoritative DNS server.” See Final Act. 7—8;
Ans. 4—5. The Examiner finds Samprathi teaches preventing a routing entry
from being aged out of a routing table. Ans. 4—5 (citing Samprathi 130).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes the combined teachings of
Kwapniewski, Christian, Kadambi, and Samprathi teach or suggest “wherein
the line card is further configured to: prevent the routing entry corresponding
to the IP address of the authoritative DNS server from being aged out of the
local FIB,” as recited in claim 7. Id.', see also Final Act. 12. Appellants are
10
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
also arguing limitations not found in the claim. Appellants assert “there is
no rational basis for concluding ‘the authoritative DNS server is an
important routing’ and that it would be obvious for a router to prevent an
entry for an authoritative DNS server from being aged out of a routing table”
(emphasis added). App. Br. 15. The claim does not require the router to
prevent an entry from being aged out of a router table; rather the claim
recites the line card is configured to prevent the routing entry from being
aged out. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Samprathi’s paragraph
30, at a minimum, suggests preventing the routing entry from being aged out
of the routing table is well known. Ans. 5. Appellants’ arguments are,
therefore, unpersuasive of error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 7.
Claim 9
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kwapniewski
and Morris teaches or suggests “wherein the control module is further
configured to: send a request to other routers to send copies of replies to the
DNS request to the router,” as recited in claim 9?
Appellants contend the combination of Kwapniewski and Morris fails
to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 5—6.
In particular, Appellants contend “Morris discloses that DNS nodes 410 and
412 are DNS servers” and “[e]ven if assuming for the sake of argument that
the DNS servers do ‘route’ DNS requests, DNS servers are not routers,”
therefore, Morris does not teach or suggest that a control module, including
a routing table, sends a request to other routers to send copies of replies to
11
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
the DNS request to the router, as required by claim 9. App. Br. 17—18
(citing Morris, Fig. 4; || 42, 43, 50, 51, 53, 70, and 73).
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds Kwapniewski teaches a router having a control module. Final Act. 15
(citing Kwapniewski, Fig. 2; 131). The Examiner finds Morris teaches
forwarding DNS requests among nodes 402, 404, 418 to the DNS servers,
nodes 410, 412, 414, and 416. Ans. 5 (citing Morris, Fig. 4; || 50, 51). The
Examiner further finds Morris teaches “the sending node, path nodes, and
other nodes are able to implement the detector and resolver for detecting and
resolving [a] portion of the DNS requests and forward the requests to the
DNS servers.” Id. at 5—6. Morris teaches execution environment 302,
illustrated in Figure 3, includes a routing policy component 316 configured
to determine routing information. Morris | 60. Morris further teaches
execution environment 302 can be provided by any of nodes 410, 412, 414,
and 416 illustrated in Figure 4 (id.), Morris, therefore, teaches these nodes
routing policy component 316 configured to determine routing information.
As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Morris teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation.
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err by combining Kwapniewski and Morris?
Appellants contend the combination of Kwapniewski and Morris is
improper because the Examiner “has not provided a valid reason for
combining Kwapniewski and Morris.” App. Br. 18. Appellants assert the
Examiner finds the motivation for combining the teachings of the applied
references is “to resolve the DNS request faster.” App. Br. 18 (citing Final
Act. 17) (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue “[combining Kwapniewski
12
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
and Morris does not yield a routing scheme that should resolve a domain
name any faster” and “[i]f there is a rational reason as to why the
combination would resolve domain names any faster, the Examiner has not
provided such a rationale.” Id.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. As noted supra, a
motivation to combine can be found in “any need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. “[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Here, the Examiner
finds “it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to implement the system and method as taught by
MORRIS in the system of KWAPIEWSKI [sic] for the line card to identify
the packet and the processor to send the request” and “[t]he motivation
would have been to resolve the DNS request faster.” Final Act. 16—17.
Because Morris teaches the methods are for incrementally resolving a host
name to a network address as opposed to end-to-end name resolution
(Morris ^fl[ 2—3), we find the Examiner’s proffered motivation to be
reasonable. Appellants do not present evidence that the resulting
arrangement was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” See
Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in combining Kwapniewski and Morris.
13
Appeal 2016-004869
Application 12/624,667
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 9; and claims 11 and 12, which depend from claim 9 and are
not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 19.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on the combination of Kwapniewski, Morris, and Janneteau.
Appellants do not argue claim 10 separately with particularity but, instead,
rely on the arguments presented for claim 9. See App. Br. 19. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 for the
reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 9.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—5, 7—18, and 20—22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
14