Ex Parte Padmanabhan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

14069267 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 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.
14/069,267 10/31/2013 Amar Padmanabhan N053 5499
109858 7590
VMware, Inc.
3401 Hill view Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
09/26/2017 EXAMINER
DUONG, CHRISTINE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 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):
ipadmin@vmware.com
ipteam @ vmware. com
mail@ adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMAR PADMANABHAN, JEREMY STRIBLING,
W. ANDREW LAMBETH, and NATASHA GUDE
(Applicant: Nicira, Inc.)
Appeal 2017-002968
Application 14/069,267
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2017-002968
Application 14/069,267
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to upgrading controller nodes in a
controller cluster. Spec. 1 5. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed
limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for upgrading a controller cluster comprising a
plurality of controller nodes, the controller cluster for managing a
plurality of forwarding elements, each controller node executing a
version of a network control application, the method comprising:
upgrading a first subset of the plurality of controller nodes to
execute a newer version of the network control application while
managing the forwarding elements with a second subset of the
plurality of controller nodes that execute an older version of the
network control application;
upon completion of the upgrade of the first subset of controller
nodes, upgrading a decisive controller node in the second subset of
controller nodes to signal the controller cluster to manage the
forwarding elements with the first subset of controller nodes;
upgrading the second subset of controller nodes to the newer
version of the network control application while managing the
forwarding elements with the first subset of controller nodes and the
decisive controller node; and
upon completion of the upgrade of the second subset of
controller nodes, managing the forwarding elements with the first and
second subsets of controller nodes.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—5, 11—14, and 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Linden et al. (US
2
Appeal 2017-002968
Application 14/069,267
2010/0162036 Al; published June 24, 2010) (“Linden”) and Ramanathan et
al. (US 2009/0279549 Al; published Nov. 12, 2009) (“Ramanathan”).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Linden, Ramanathan, and Caballero (US
2013/0091310 Al; published April 11, 2013).
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Linden, Ramanathan, and Perlman et
al. (US 6,768,740 Bl; issued July 27, 2004) (“Perlman”).
Claims 8—10, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Linden, Ramanathan, and Fulton
et al. (US 2013/0058358 Al; published Mar. 7, 2013) (“Fulton”).
ANALYSIS
Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Linden and Ramanathan teaches or suggests “upon completion of the
upgrade of the first subset of controller nodes, upgrading a decisive
controller node in the second subset of controller nodes to signal the
controller cluster to manage the forwarding elements with the first subset of
controller nodes,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately
recited in independent claims 12 and 17?
The Examiner finds “Linden discloses a first set of devices being
upgraded first. . . then the master devices being upgraded.” Ans. 18—19,
citing Linden || 171, 173, 174; see also Final Act. 3—4, citing Linden || 29-
30. The Examiner further finds “the order of the steps of upgrading the
different nodes can be changed such that the cluster standby devices are
3
Appeal 2017-002968
Application 14/069,267
upgraded first, then the master, then the cluster active devices.” Ans. 19,
citing Linden 1216.
Appellants1 contend “the cited references do not describe waiting for
the completion of the upgrade of a first set of controller nodes before
upgrading the decisive node” and “using the upgrade of a decisive node to
signal the controller cluster to manage forwarding elements with the
upgraded first subset of controller nodes.” App. Br. 5—7. Appellants argue
“the cited portions of Linden only describe the functions of a cluster master
and a master backup.” Id. at 5. According to Appellants, “Linden describes
a cluster upgrade operation in which standby devices are upgraded before
active devices, but it does not describe upgrading the master or backup
master device upon the completion of the upgrade of a subset of controller
nodes.” Id. at 5—6. In addition, Appellants argue “in the cluster upgrade
operation of Linden, each device is made active after the upgrade is
complete” to “allow[] the system to keep as many devices available as
possible through the upgrade process.” Id. at 6.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The claim language
recites that upgrading the decisive controller node “signal[s] the controller
cluster to manage the forwarding elements with the first subset of controller
nodes,” which have already been upgraded to execute the newer version of
the network control application.
Although the Examiner correctly finds that Linden describes
upgrading standby devices, master devices, and active devices, we agree
1 Appellants present essentially the same arguments for independent
claims 12 and 17. App. Br. 8—12.
4
Appeal 2017-002968
Application 14/069,267
with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided sufficient findings that
upgrading a decisive controller node in the second subset of controller nodes
signals the controller cluster to manage the forwarding elements with the
first subset of controller nodes. Rather, Linden describes taking down
cluster devices “in an orderly fashion such that the services provided by the
cluster are not significantly impacted.” Linden 1170; see also Spec. 1171
(describing upgrading standby devices A, B, and C, where A is upgraded
first while keeping B and C up, and then “after the A device is running
again, upgrade device B while devices A and C are kept up”); 1172
(describing upgrading active devices or “one (or some other subset) of the
active devices at a time” and “[a]s each active device is upgraded or
modified, it may be failed over to another active device and/or to a standby
device if available”); 1173 (describing upgrading the cluster backup master
device which “may be failed over to another cluster device”); 1174
(describing upgrading the cluster master device by “failing over the cluster
master to another cluster device”).
Even if we determined the various cluster devices may be upgraded in
any order, as the Examiner finds, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown
where upgrading the master device (which the Examiner finds teaches the
decisive controller node) signals to the controller cluster to manage the
forwarding elements with the upgraded standby devices (which the
Examiner finds teaches the first subset of controller nodes) while the active
devices (which the Examiner finds teaches the second subset of controller
nodes) are being upgraded.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred and we, therefore,
do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
5
Appeal 2017-002968
Application 14/069,267
claims 1,12, and 17. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments
advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other
arguments. Therefore, for the same reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2—11, 13—16,
and 18-21.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6