Ex Parte Sultan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 20, 2010

09899265 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte NEVEIN T. SULTAN, 8
DWIGHT D. JAMIESON, and 9
VALERIE A. SIMPSON 10
___________ 11
12
Appeal 2009-008506 13
Application 09/899,265 14
Technology Center 3600 15
___________ 16
17
Decided: April 20, 2010 18
___________ 19
20
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and 21
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. 22
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 23
DECISION ON APPEAL 24
Appeal 2000-008506
Application 09/899,265

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Nevein T. Sultan, Dwight D. Jamieson, and Valerie A. Simpson 2
(Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of a final rejection of 3
claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-25, and 27-31, the only claims pending in the 4
application on appeal. 5
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 6
(2002). 7
SUMMARY OF DECISION1 8
We REVERSE. 9
THE INVENTION 10
The Appellants invented a policy based traffic forwarding control within 11
a data network (Specification 7:¶ 0017). 12
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 13
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 14
paragraphing added]. 15
1. A method of enabling policy-based traffic forwarding in a 16
data network having at least two area border routers (ABRs), 17
the method comprising steps of: 18
[1] generating a link state advertisement (LSA) message, and 19

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed August 15, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December
16, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 3, 2008).
Appeal 2000-008506
Application 09/899,265

3
asserting a route tag in respect of the generated LSA 1
message; and 2
[2] at each ABR receiving the LSA message, 3
controlling propagation of the received LSA, 4
into an area of the data network hosted by the ABR, 5
using a respective forwarding policy 6
having a match criteria corresponding to the 7
asserted route tag; 8
[3] wherein the respective forwarding policy of a first ABR 9
differs from that of a second ABR, 10
such that the received LSA message is flooded into the 11
area hosted by the first ABR, and 12
not flooded into the respective area hosted by the second 13
ABR. 14
THE REJECTION 15
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 16
Zhang US 6,275,492 B1 Aug. 14, 2001
Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-25, and 27-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 17
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Zhang. 18
ARGUMENTS 19
The Appellants argue these claims as a group. Accordingly, we select 20
claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008). 21
The Appellants contend that a route tag is not a destination address 22
(Appeal Br. 5), that specifically forwarding packets to a destination address 23
is entirely different from flooding link state advertisements (LSAs) into an 24
area hosted by an area border router (ABR) (Appeal Br. 6), that calculating 25
Appeal 2000-008506
Application 09/899,265

4
routes to various destinations using a received LSA, and controlling 1
propagation of a received LSA are radically different and entirely 2
independent functions (Appeal Br. 7), and that since an LSA contains no 3
destination address, one cannot use an LSA to control propagation of 4
received LSAs (id.). 5
ISSUES 6
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8, 10-15, 7
17-25, and 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Zhang turns on 8
whether Zhang describes a forwarding policy of a first ABR that differs 9
from that of a second ABR, such that a received LSA message is flooded 10
into the area hosted by the first ABR, and not flooded into the respective 11
area hosted by the second ABR. 12
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 13
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 14
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 15
Facts Related to the Prior Art 16
Zhang 17
01. Zhang is directed to routing data through one or more networks. 18
Zhang routes data packets through a network using router 19
identification information contained in the data packets. Zhang 20
1:9-13. 21
02. Zhang several two protocols. One, the link state advertisement 22
(LSA) protocol is implemented by having routers send 23
information regarding the network apology to the nodes. Another 24
Appeal 2000-008506
Application 09/899,265

5
protocol, referred to as tag switching, forwards data packets based 1
on tags inserted into the data packet rather than based on the 2
packet’s destination address. Zhang 1:26-60. 3
03. Based on the information received in LSA's, each router 4
calculates routes to various destinations in the network. In 5
addition to maintaining a routing table of routes to various 6
destinations, each router maintains a routing table in each area for 7
all Area Border Routers (ABRs) in the area. Zhang 3:42 – 4:22. 8
04. Zhang describes a composite of the two protocols by using 9
existing router IDs to perform the function of a route tags. The 10
route identifiers are transmitted automatically by advertisement of 11
LSAs. Zhang 4:59-67. 12
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 13
Anticipation 14
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the 15
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art 16
reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 17
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 18
"When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either 19
generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the 20
structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the 21
prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 22
"The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is 23
contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 24
Appeal 2000-008506
Application 09/899,265

6
1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the 1
claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is 2
not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 3
ANALYSIS 4
The Appellants’ argument is essentially that the Examiner's analysis 5
conflates the transmission of LSAs and messages. We agree with the 6
Appellants. The Examiner’s analysis at Ans. 6 describes each of the 7
protocols. The Examiner correctly observes that when a router receives a 8
data packet it determines from the route tag whether the data packet is 9
destined for each domain by matching the switch tag information to its own 10
information, and that if a data packet is not destined for the routers domain, 11
the data packet is sent to a router of a different domain. 12
The Examiner then erroneously concludes that this sequence applies to 13
transmissions of LSAs. The transmission of LSAs is independent of source 14
to destination message transmission and uses a protocol different from that 15
of source to destination message transmission. As the Appellants argue, the 16
transmission of LSAs is simply proximity-based, transmitting from one 17
router to another router that is connected next in sequence. FF 02-03. Thus, 18
the Examiner’s inference that the protocol recited in claim 1 limitation [3] is 19
inherent in existing packet transmission protocols is in error by assuming 20
that the LSA transmission carries with it a destination address that directs 21
selection of Area Border Routers (ABRs). 22
Appeal 2000-008506
Application 09/899,265

7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-25, and 27-31 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Zhang. 3
DECISION 4
To summarize, our decision is as follows. 5
• The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-25, and 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. 6
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Zhang is not sustained. 7
8
REVERSED 9
10
11
12
mev 13
14
Address 15
BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON, LLP 16
45 O'CONNOR ST., 20TH FLOOR 17
OTTAWA ON K1P 1A4 CA CANADA 18