Nicira, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 23, 2021

2020003780 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2021)

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.
15/665,135 07/31/2017 Mani Kancherla N507.03 (NCRA.P0631) 3940
109858 7590 08/23/2021
ADELI LLP
P.O. Box 516
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
EXAMINER
KWOH, JASPER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2021 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
mail@adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MANI KANCHERLA and RONGHUA ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2020-003780
Application 15/665,135
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1–10, 13–18, and 21–24 which are all

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant states the real parties in interest are
VMware, Inc., and Nicira, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003780
Application 15/665,135

2
of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to a method of directing a return data message to a
service node storing state information for the flow to which the data message
belongs. See Abstract.

CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Appeal Br. 21–24. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1,
which is reproduced below.
1. For a cluster of service nodes that perform a service for
different message flows, a method comprising:
at a particular service node that is a primary service node
for a particular data message flow that is addressed to a
destination data compute node (DCN),
receiving a data message of the particular data
message flow from a forwarding element that performs a
load balancing operation to select the particular service
node;
performing the service on the data message; and

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 29, 2019, “Appeal Br.”), the
Reply Brief (filed April 22, 2020, “Reply Brief”), the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed February 21, 2020, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed May 3, 2019,
“Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed July 31, 2017, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
Appeal 2020-003780
Application 15/665,135

3
forwarding the data message along with information
identifying the primary service node to a host computer on
which the destination compute node executes, wherein a
module executing on the host computer generates an entry in a
reverse forwarding table including identifying information for
(i) the particular data message flow and (ii) the primary service
node, the generated reverse forwarding table entry used to
forward, to the primary service node, a return data message of
the particular data message flow that is identified on the host
computer.
Appeal Br. 21, Claims App.
Prior Art
Name3 Reference Date
Schory US 2007/0180226 A1 Aug. 2, 2007
Venkatesh US 2014/0269733 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Fernando US 2016/0006654 A1 Jan. 7, 2016
Koponen US 2016/0080261 A1 Mar. 17, 2016
Mills US 2017/0195169 A1 July 6, 2017

REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE
1. Claims 1, 13, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Koponen and Fernando. Final Act. 2–4.
2. Claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Koponen, Fernando, and Venkatesh. Final
Act. 4–6.

3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-003780
Application 15/665,135

4
3. Claims 4, 5, 9, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Koponen, Fernando, and Mills. Final Act. 6–
9.
4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Koponen, Fernando, and Venkatesh. Final Act. 9–10.
5. Claims 6–8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Koponen, Fernando, Mills, and Schory. Final Act.
10–12.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–10, 13–18, and 21–24 in
light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have reviewed
the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by the
Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with
approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long
been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error
in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only
those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments which the Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We
are persuaded of error.
CLAIMS 1, 13, 22, AND 24: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KOPONEN AND FERNANDO.
Appellant contends independent “Claim 1 recites a cluster of service
nodes that perform a service for different message flows and a method for a
particular service node that is a primary service node for a particular data
Appeal 2020-003780
Application 15/665,135

5
message flow that is addressed to a destination data compute node (DCN).”
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant states “[c]laim 13 recites a non-transitory machine
readable medium storing a set of instructions for performing the method of
claim 1.” Id. Appellant further contends: “[a]ll of the dependent claims are
patentable for the reasons that were given above for independent claims 1
and 13 from which they directly or indirectly depend.” Appeal Br. 15.
Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 103 rejection of the claims on the
basis of Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the
claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
at a particular service node that is a primary service node
for a particular data message flow that is addressed to a
destination data compute node (DCN),
receiving a data message of the particular data message
flow from a forwarding element that performs a load balancing
operation to select the particular service node.”
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix). Claim 13 recites commensurate
limitations.
The Examiner finds Koponen teaches a Load Balancer on Host 1 as a
primary service node for a data message flow addressed to a destination
DCN on Host 1. Final Act. 3.
Appellant contends the Examiner:
[F]ailed to cite references that recite a cluster of service nodes
that perform a service for different message flows and that a
particular service node that is a primary service node for a
particular data message flow that is addressed to a destination
data compute node receives a data message of the particular
Appeal 2020-003780
Application 15/665,135

6
data message flow from a forwarding element that performs a
load balancing operation to select the particular service node.
Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues Koponen is directed to performing first-hop
logical processing at a source host machine and returning a data message to
the source host machine for last-hop logical processing. Id.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the Examiner finds:
[T]hese claims recite “a cluster of service nodes that perform a
service for different message flows” in the preamble portion of
the claims. This feature does not limit the claims because (1)
the body of the claim is self-contained description of the
structure and does not depend on the preamble for
completeness, (2) it describes an intended use of the claimed
invention, and (3) it merely extols features with no clear
reliance on those features as patentably significant. Because the
body does not reference the cluster of service nodes and it is
describing an intended use, this feature is treated as an intended
use and does not limit the claims.
Ans. 4.
Appellant contends:
Appellant’s arguments did not rely on the cluster of nodes
recited in the preamble. See, e.g., App. Br. 11–13. Instead,
Appellant argued that the cited references did not disclose or
suggest the particular service node being selected by a
forwarding element that performs a load balancing operation, as
recited in the body of the independent claims. Accordingly,
whether the cluster of nodes is limiting is irrelevant to the
arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and this Reply Brief
Reply Br. 2.
Appellant contends:
Koponen does not include a primary service node in a cluster of
service nodes that receives a data message addressed to a
destination data compute node from a forwarding element that
performs a load balancing operation to select the particular
Appeal 2020-003780
Application 15/665,135

7
service node. Instead, Koponen discloses a local MFE
[managed forwarding element] performing a load balancing
service for a particular VIP address to select a destination VM
for a data message destined for the particular VIP address
associated with the load balancing service.
Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner maps the claimed “primary service node” (recited in
the body of the claim as reading on “VM1/Host 1.” Ans. 4 (citing Koponen
¶ 125, Fig. 7).
Appellant contends the Examiner’s mapping is inconsistent.
Appellant argues the Examiner maps the “Load Balancer on Host 1, as
particular/ primary service node,” but then maps the same load balancer as
the forwarding element that performs load balancing to select the recipient
service node. Appeal Br. 13 (citing Final Ans. 3). Appellant argues the
Examiner “fail[s] to distinguish between (i) a forwarding element that
performs a load balancing operation to select a particular service node and
(ii) the particular service node that is selected to provide the service, and
(3) they fail to distinguish between service nodes and sources/destinations
of data messages. Reply Br. 2.
The body of claim 1 recites, inter alia, “at a particular service node
that is a primary service node for a particular data message flow . . .
receiving a data message of the particular data message flow from a
forwarding element that performs a load balancing operation to select the
particular service node.” The Examiner finds the “Load Balancer on Host 1
[is the] primary service node, for data message flow” to Host 2. Final Act. 3
(citing Koponen ¶ 125, Fig. 7). Having first found the Load Balancer on
Host 1 is the primary service node, the Answer inconsistently finds the VM1
on Host 1 is the primary service node. Ans. 4 (“VM1 /Host 1
Appeal 2020-003780
Application 15/665,135

8
illustrates/teaches the particular/primary service node”) (citing Koponen,
Fig. 7); (see Ans. 5) (“VM1 /Host 1 illustrates/teaches the particular/primary
service node”). The final Action cites Koponen, Paragraph 125 for this
teaching, but the Answer does not cite specific text. Our review of Koponen
fails to reveal disclosure relating to designating a particular service node as
primary.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
1, 13, 22, and 24.
CLAIMS 2, 3, 14, 15, 21, AND 23:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER KOPONEN, FERNANDO, AND VENKATESH.
Appellant contends, inter alia, the dependent claims are patentable in
view of the arguments in favor of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner does not apply Venkatesh to teach the disputed
limitation, discussed above. See Answer.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
2, 3, 14, 15, 21, and 23.
CLAIMS 4, 5, 9, 16, AND 17:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER KOPONEN, FERNANDO, AND MILLS.
Appellant contends, inter alia, the dependent claims are patentable in
view of the arguments in favor of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner does not apply Mills to teach the disputed limitation,
discussed above. See Answer.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
4, 5, 9, 16, and 17.
CLAIM 10: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KOPONEN, FERNANDO, AND VENKATESH.
Appeal 2020-003780
Application 15/665,135

9
Appellant contends, inter alia, the dependent claims are patentable in view
of the arguments in favor of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner does not apply Venkatesh to teach the disputed
limitation, discussed above. See Answer.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim
10.
CLAIMS 6–8 AND 18:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER KOPONEN, FERNANDO, MILLS, AND SCHORY.
Appellant contends, inter alia, the dependent claims are patentable in
view of the arguments in favor of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner does not apply Mills or Schory to teach the disputed
limitation, discussed above. See Answer.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
6–8 and 18.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 13, 22, 24 103 Koponen, Fernando, 1, 13, 22, 24
2, 3, 14, 15,
21, 23
103 Koponen,
Fernando,
Venkatesh
2, 3, 14, 15, 21, 23
Appeal 2020-003780
Application 15/665,135

10
4, 5, 9, 16, 17 103 Koponen, Fernando, Mills
4, 5, 9, 16,
17
10
103 Koponen,
Fernando,
Venkatesh
10
6, 7, 8, 18
103 Koponen,
Fernando, Mills,
Schory
6, 7, 8, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 13–18,
21–24

REVERSED