Nicira, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 23, 20212020003780 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation