Ex Parte Wu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

14374273 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/374,273 07/24/2014 QiangWu
56436 7590 09/01/2016
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.
83995247 1466
EXAMINER
LAMONT, BENJAMIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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
Exparte QIANG WU1
Appeal2016-005631
Application 14/374,273
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, WSTIN BUSCH, and SCOTT E.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9-13, 17, and 18.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 18 are independent claims. The claims generally
relate to processing Virtual Station Interface (VSI) Discovery and
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hangzhou H3C
Technologies Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 6-8, 14--16, 19, and 20 also are pending in the application and are
objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Final Act. 3.
1
Appeal2016-005631
Application 14/374,273
Configuration Protocol (VDP) request packets containing a notification for a
change in traffic features, determining filter information to be changed, and
processing "a VSI configuration and strategy according to the filter
information to be changed." Spec. Abstract; see App. Br. 23-28. Claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below with formatting added:
1. A method for processing a Virtual Station Interface Discovery
and Configuration Protocol (VDP) request packet at an edge
switch, the method comprising:
receiving a VDP request packet from a data server;
determining whether filter information is to be unchanged
or changed from filter information status information in the VDP
request packet;
determining filter information to be changed according to
filter information in the VDP request packet in response to
determining the filter information is to be changed from the filter
information status information;
requesting a Virtual Station Interface (VSI)
management server to process a VSI configuration and
strategy according to the filter information to be changed;
and
rece1vmg a response from the VSI management
server, and
processing the VSI configuration and strategy
according to the filter information to be changed; and
processing the VDP packet request without sending a
request to the VSI management server to process a VSI
configuration and strategy in response to determining the filter
information is to be unchanged.
REJECTION
Claims 1-5, 9-13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Li (US 2012/0063363 Al; Mar. 15, 2012),
and IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks-Media
2
Appeal2016-005631
Application 14/374,273
Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks-
Amendment 21: Edge Virtual Bridging IEEE (2012) (hereinafter, "IEEE").
Final Act. 4.
OPINION
Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 over Li and IEEE
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 as a group. App.
Br. 15-17. We select claim 1 as representative of that group. Claims 3, 4, 9,
11, 12, 17, and 18 stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to receiving a VDP request packet, determining
whether filter information is to be changed from the filter information status
information, and processing the VDP request packet based on that
determination. The Examiner finds Li teaches each recited step of claim 13
except "processing the VDP packet request without sending a request to the
VSI management server to process a VSI configuration and strategy in
response to determmmg the filter information is to be unchanged." Fin.
Act. 4---6. The Examiner finds IEEE teaches that limitation, and provides a
rationale for modifying Li with the teachings of IEEE. Id. at 6.
The Examiner explains that Li's updates to the VLAN associations are
mapped to the recited changes in filter information. Ans. 2. In particular,
3 Although the rejection apparently relies on Li alone for teaching
"determining whether filter information is to be unchanged or changed from
filter information status information in the VDP request packet," the
Response to Arguments in the Examiner's Answer clarifies that it is Li's
server 520 that makes the determination based on whether the Associate
request is a "regular" Associate request, as taught in Li, or a "keep-alive"
Associate request, as taught in IEEE. Fin. Act. 2-3; See Ans. 3-7.
3
Appeal2016-005631
Application 14/374,273
the Examiner refers to details in Li regarding Associate Request messages
and the content therein, which Li uses to obtain and assign VLAN IDs
(VIDs) for each Virtual Station Interface (VSI) of an associated Virtual
Machine (VM). Ans. 2-3 (citing Li i-fi-136-37). The Examiner further
explains that, in one example, Li sends an Associate Request with a VID
"set to about zero," and Li's bridge 530 obtains a VID corresponding to the
Group ID in the Associate Request, resulting in the VID changing from 0 to
8. Id. at 4 (quoting Li i136). The Examiner points to Li's disclosure that the
VID, which the Examiner finds teaches the recited "filter information to be
changed," is transmitted in the VDP request packets in a "Filter Info field."
Id. at 4--5 (citing Li Fig. 2, i-fi-127-28, 36). Finally, the Examiner explains
that the combination of Li and IEEE teaches processing both Associate
Requests to create new associations (as described in Li), which require
querying the network, and "keep-alive" Associate Requests "to maintain
current associations" (as described in IEEE), which do not include querying
the network. Id. at 5-7.
Appellant argues the combination of Li and IEEE fails to teach or
suggest "determining whether filter information is to be unchanged or
changed from filter information status information in the VDP request
packet" (the "first determining step"), "determining filter information to be
changed according to filter information in the VDP request packet in
response to determining the filter information is to be changed from the filter
information status information" (the "second determining step"), and
"processing the VDP packet request without sending a request to the VSI
management server to process a VSI configuration and strategy in response
4
Appeal2016-005631
Application 14/374,273
to determining the filter information is to be unchanged" (the "processing
step"). App. Br. 8-15. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's
rationale for combining Li and IEEE.
Appellant argues the first determining step and the second
determining step separately, but the same argument-that neither Li nor
IEEE relate to filter information-underlies each of these arguments.
Specifically, with respect to the first determining step, Appellant quotes
language from the portions of Li and IEEE that the Examiner cites, and
argues none of the cited portions "teach or suggest any aspects related to
filter information, much less change in filter information, and particularly
any type of associate request that is related to change in filter information."
Id. at 10; see id. at 10-11, 12. Regarding the second determining step,
Appellant also quotes language from the portions of Li cited by the
Examiner, and concludes "Li does not teach or suggest that the Group ID is
located in any type of filter information field in the Associate request, or that
the Group ID represents filter information that is changed." Id. at 12-13.
Similarly, with respect to the processing step, Appellant quotes language
from the portions of IEEE cited by the Examiner, argues the cited disclosure
"describe[ s] how the 'TRANSMIT_KEEP ALIVE' Associate request with S-
bit = 1 can be sent when the VSI user is suspended," and asserts the cited
disclosures do not teach or suggest "processing of a VDP packet request
without sending a request to a VSI management server." Id. at 14--15.
Appellant's arguments, however, fail to substantively explain why the
cited portions of Li and IEEE do not teach or suggest the recited limitations
or what the recited claim terms mean, such that the disclosures in Li and
5
Appeal2016-005631
Application 14/374,273
IEEE are inapposite. App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 6-10. For example,
Appellant argues the combination of Li and IEEE does not teach "filter
information," yet provides no explanation-let alone a definition----of what
"filter information" is. Appellant's mere assertion that the prior art does not
teach a particular element with no meaningful explanation is unpersuasive.
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art"); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.").
The Examiner has pointed to aspects of Li that disclose information
(e.g., VID) that is a part of a "Filter Info" field and transmission of messages
that change the value of that information. Appellant has not sufficiently
argued or pointed to anything in the Specification explaining why the cited
portions of Li and IEEE do not teach or suggest the disputed limitations.
Specifically, Appellant fails to explain why data in a "filter info" field would
not be considered filter information or provide any insight into what
constitutes filter information. Accordingly, on the record before us, we are
not persuaded of any error in the Examiner's finding that Li's VID teaches
or suggests the recited filter information. Similarly, Appellant provides no
persuasive reasoning why the processing a "keep-alive" Associate Request
in the proposed combined system of Li and IEEE fails to teach the recited
"processing the VDP packet request without sending a request .... "
6
Appeal2016-005631
Application 14/374,273
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. See App. Br. 15-17; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Obviousness of Claims 2, 5, 10, and 13 over Li and IEEE
In addition to asserting claims 2, 5, 10, and 13 are allowable for the
same reason asserted with respect to independent claims 1 and 9, Appellant
argues the additional limitations recited in these dependent claims provide
further bases for finding the claims allowable over the cited prior art. Id. at
17-21. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites the further limitation of
"determining the filter information is to be increased according to the filter
information in the VDP request packet, wherein the VSI configuration and
strategy is requested according to the filter information to be increased."
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and recites a limitation similar to the
additional limitation recited in claim 2. Claim 5, which depends from claim
1, and claim 13, which depends from claim 9, further define the notification
recited in claims 1 and 9, respectively.
The Examiner finds the same disclosures relied on for teaching
changing a VID in response to an Associate Request in Li teaches or
suggests the recited limitation in claim 2 of "determining the filter
information is to be increased." Ans. 7. Specifically, the Examiner explains
that Li's bridge 530 "determines filter information is to be increased" when
it receives an Associate Request by determining that the VID in the request
packet "is set to 'about zero,"' which causes the system bridge 530 to query
the network to determine a VID that corresponds with a received Group ID.
7
Appeal2016-005631
Application 14/374,273
Subsequently, the null or zero YID is replaced with a valid YID, for example
8. Id. (quoting Li i-fi-121, 25, 36, 37). The Examiner concludes that the new
association (storing the assigned value of 8 for the VID) constitutes an
increase in filter information.
Similar to Appellant's arguments with respect to claim 1, Appellant
quotes portions of the paragraphs of Li cited by the Examiner as teaching or
suggesting the additional limitations of claims 2 and 10, and concludes that
"Li does not teach or suggest any aspects related to change of filter
information" or "that a change in the VLAN ID associated with the Group
ID constitutes an increase in the VLAN ID." App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 13.
Appellant's argument with respect to claims 5 and 13 turns on the same
issue as claims 2 and 10. Reply Br. 14--15; App. Br. 19.4 Specifically,
Appellant argues Li's disclosure of changing the VID does not "constitute[]
an increase in any type of traffic features." Reply Br. 14--15. Appellant
does not point to anything in the Specification to add clarity regarding what
is meant by the recited term "traffic feature," and we find nothing in the
Specification to provide a meaning that would exclude Li's VID from the
broadest reasonable interpretation of "traffic feature."5
As discussed above, Appellant's mere assertion that the prior art does
not teach a particular element is not, without more, persuasive of error. In re
4 We also note that we agree with the Examiner that claims 5 and 13 require
only one of the three limitations further defining the notification-i.e., one
of increasing, decreasing, or not changing the traffic features.
5 Paragraphs 22 through 24 of the Specification of the present application
appear to indicate that notifications to increase or decrease traffic features
result in a determination of filter information to be increased or deleted.
8
Appeal2016-005631
Application 14/374,273
Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365. The Examiner explained the finding that the YID,
which is a piece of information transmitted in the "Filter Info" field in the
Associate Request VDP packets in Li, is considered to be filter information
and Li discloses changing that from a near zero value to a value of eight,
resulting in an increase. Therefore, on the record before us, we are
unpersuaded the Examiner erred in finding that increasing the value of the
VID teaches or suggests the recited "increasing the traffic features." As with
Appellant's arguments regarding claim 1, we find no persuasive argument
from Appellant regarding what filter information is, why the VID is not filter
information, or why increasing the value of the VID does not teach or
suggest the recited language. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2 and 10, and claims 5 and 13 for the reasons discussed
herein.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-5, 9-13, 17, and 18.
TIME TO RESPOND
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9