Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 22, 201713698407 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/698,407 11/16/2012 Jiangtao Zhang 3602-547 6674 6449 7590 02/24/2017 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. 607 14th Street, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER PHUNKULH, BOB A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2412 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/24/2017 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): PTO-PAT-Email @rfem. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIANGTAO ZHANG, BENGT JOHANSSON, and STEN RUNE PETTERSSON Appeal 2016-008233 Application 13/698,4071 Technology Center 2400 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Appeal Brief, filed January 12, 2016 (“App. Br.”) 2). Appeal 2016-008233 Application 13/698,407 The disclosed invention relates generally to information processing systems. Spec 1:5. Independent claim 1 reads as follows: 1. An apparatus, comprising: a processor for running a plurality of applications; and a network interface that is separate and distinct from said processor, said network interface comprising a communication interface for receiving and transmitting packets to external units over a network, a first layer filter operating according to first level filtering rules, and a plurality of first layer packet queues, wherein the processor comprises at least one kernel, a second layer filter operating according to second level filtering rules, and second packet queues, the apparatus is adapted for delivering at least a part of a packet from a first layer packet queue to the second layer filter and delivering at least a part of a packet in the second layer filter to a second layer packet queue and further to one of said plurality of applications running on the processor, for a packet received on the communication interface, the apparatus is further configured to: deliver at least a part of the packet to the first layer filter; apply first level filtering; perform first sorting according to the first level filtering rules, select one of said plurality of first layer packet queues in dependence on the first sorting, and deliver at least the part of the packet to said selected first layer packet queue; deliver at least the part of the packet to second layer filter from kernel or from said selected first layer packet queue; apply second level filtering; perform second sorting on at least the part of the packet according to the second level filtering rules and 2 Appeal 2016-008233 Application 13/698,407 in dependence on the second sorting, deliver at least the part of the packet to one of the plurality of applications running on the processor. The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: 1) claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 19, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ahn (US 2011/0055916 Al, published March 3, 2011) and Pleshek et al. (US 2012/0106354 Al, published May 3, 2012, “Pleshek”); 2) claims 4—6, 8, 9, 14—18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ahn, Pleshek, and Moisand et al. (US 8,339,959 Bl, issued Dec. 25, 2012, “Moisand”); 3) claims 10 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ahn, Pleshek, and Johansson et al. (US 2011/0044279 Al, published Feb. 24, 2011, “Johansson”); and 4) claims 3, 13, and 23—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ahn, Pleshek, and Nam (US 2006/0187830 Al, published Aug. 24, 2006). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—28? ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites delivering a part of a packet to one of a plurality of applications running on the processor. The Examiner finds that Ahn 3 Appeal 2016-008233 Application 13/698,407 discloses this feature. Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that Ahn fails to disclose an “application” running on the “processor” (i.e., “FW2” or “rule sorter 106” of Ahn). App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner states that Ahn discloses a “‘second level filtering application’ running inside the processor” and that “packets that pass the filtering ... are allowed into the protected network.” Ans. 3^4 (citing Ahn Fig. 4, § 24) (emphasis omitted). Hence, the Examiner finds that Ahn discloses processing packets in a computer and that one of skill in the art would have understood that a computer would execute computer “applications” and that data processed in a computer would be used in such known “applications” that are known to be executed on computers. We agree with the Examiner and further note that Ahn confirms that the process is “executed by the processor of a computer” and that a “computer [is used] to perform steps.” Ahn | 8. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use data packets processed in a computer system in computer applications running on the computer system at least because it was well known to those of skill in the art, at least as a matter of common sense, that computers execute computer applications with data packets. “Rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.” KSR Int 7. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). In addition, “the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. 4 Appeal 2016-008233 Application 13/698,407 Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S.at414). Claim 1 recites a network interface comprising a first layer filter operating according to first level filtering rules. The Examiner finds that Ahn discloses this feature. Final Act. 3. As the Examiner indicates, Ahn discloses a component (“FW1”) that comprises a filter (i.e., “packet filter 108”) that operates according to first level filtering rules (i.e., “rule subset A”). Ahn Fig. 4,124. Appellants argue that Ahn discloses a “first firewall” (FW1) as a “network node” but fails to disclose the “first firewall” as a “network interface.” App. Br. 10-11. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument at least because, other than mere terminology and nomenclature, Appellants do not point out substantive or meaningful differences between Ahn and the claimed “network interface.” In both instances, the component comprises a filter operating according to filtering rules. Appellants also argue that Ahn fails to disclose that “FW1 ” “includes the required ‘first layer filter.’” App. Br. 11. However, Appellants fail to demonstrate a meaningful difference between “FW1” of Ahn comprising a “filter” and the network interface as recited in claim 1 that also comprises a “filter.” Hence, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Claim 1 recites selecting a first layer packet queue in dependence on the first sorting. The Examiner finds that Ahn discloses transmission of packets involving rules sorting (i.e., “rules are sorted” to “be distributed across . . . processors in a . . . pipelined manner” — Ahn 124) and Pleshek 5 Appeal 2016-008233 Application 13/698,407 also discloses forwarding of packets involving “rules set up in filter engines,” the packets being “stored in ingress queues or buffers” or “in egress queues” “prior to being sent out.” Pleshek | 69. The Examiner also finds that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to have combined the known process of forwarding of packets involving rule sorting of Ahn (or Pleshek) with the known process of forwarding of packets involving rule sorting in which queues are used “prior to being sent out” of Pleshek at least because the combination of such known processes performing their known functions would have resulted in no more than the mere expected and predictable result of a known process of forwarding or transmission of packets involving rule sorting while storing such packets in known queues “prior to being sent out,” as disclosed by Pleshek (i.e., “Pleshek was cited to show proving queues in packet filtering apparatus is known in the art” — Ans. 5—6 (emphasis omitted)). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Ahn and Pleshek. App. Br. 12—13. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for at least the previously discussed reasons (see above). Claim 27 recites processing packets “by a single network node.” Appellants argue that Ahn discloses “FW1 and FW2” as being “separate and distinct” rather than being “a single network node.” App. Br. 16. In other 6 Appeal 2016-008233 Application 13/698,407 words, Appellants argue that Ahn discloses two firewalls rather than a single firewall. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 7. For example, claim 27 recites a single network node but does not recite or otherwise require a single firewall. Also, as the Examiner points out, Ahn discloses an example of one network location (or “single network node”) that includes two firewalls. Ans. 7 (citing Ahn Fig. 4A). Claim 27 recites a network interface card. Appellants argue that Ahn fails to disclose or suggest a “card.” App. Br. 16—17. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 8. As previously discussed, Ahn discloses a computer system in which packet processing is performed. One of ordinary skill in the art, not being an automaton, would have understood that computer components may be implemented on “cards.” Hence, even assuming Appellants to be correct that Ahn does not disclose the term “card,” we disagree with Appellants that one of skill in the art would not have understood that a “card” is used. In addition, Ahn discloses that the disclosed computer functions “can be implemented in a non-transitory computer readable medium.” Ahn | 8. Given that the level of skill in the art is high, one of skill in the art would have understood a “computer-readable medium” to include a computer “card” as one (known) example. Claim 28 recites that a plurality of first layer packet queues are stored on the network interface card. Appellants argue that Ahn fails to disclose or 7 Appeal 2016-008233 Application 13/698,407 suggest this feature. App. Br. 17—18. As previously discussed, Aim discloses “subject matter ... for adaptive packet filtering” to be “implemented in a . . . computer readable medium.” Aim | 8. Appellants do not demonstrate persuasively a difference between the “computer readable medium” disclosed by Ahn and the claimed “card.” In both cases, data is stored on the medium/card. Claim 2 recites delivering a packet from a first packet queue to a kernel and then to an application so that the second layer filtering means is bypassed. Claim 12 recites a similar feature. Appellants argue that Ahn fails to disclose delivering a packet “to a kerneF and “'further to an application ” as recited in claim 2 (and claim 12). App. Br. 14 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Ahn discloses bypassing a second layer filtering. Ans. 6 (citing Ahn Fig. 4). We agree with the Examiner that Ahn discloses that second layer filtering is bypassed, as recited in claims 2 and 12. However, the Examiner does not demonstrate sufficiently that Ahn also discloses that the data that bypasses the filtering is also delivered to a kernel and further to an application. Indeed, the Examiner does not explain where the data is delivered at all in Ahn. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 12. Appellants do not provide additional, substantive arguments in support of the other claims on appeal or substantive arguments with respect to Moisand, Johansson, or Nam. 8 Appeal 2016-008233 Application 13/698,407 SUMMARY We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—11, and 13—28. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ahn and Pleshek. 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-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation