Oracle International Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2021

2020002932 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 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.
15/460,083 03/15/2017 Ashok V. Krishnamoorthy ORA17-0555 8599
51067 7590 09/03/2021
PVFD-ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
LI, SHI K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2021 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):
SYADMIN@PARKLEGAL.COM
USPTO-INCOMING@PARKLEGAL.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte ASHOK V. KRISHNAMOORTHY,
SHIMON MULLER, and XUEZHE ZHENG
_______________

Appeal 2020-002932
Application 15/460,083
Technology Center 2600
_______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7 through 11, 13, 14, and 17 through 20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Oracle International Corporation, is the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002932
Application 15/460,083

2
INVENTION
The invention relates to an optically switched network which includes
a passive optical switch with N inputs and N outputs, which can
communicate different wavelengths from each of the N inputs to each of the
N outputs. Spec. Abstr. It also includes N end-nodes, and N pairs of optical
fibers, wherein each pair connects one of the N end-nodes to one of the N
inputs and one of the N outputs. Id. The optically switched network is
organized into a virtual data plane and a virtual control plane, which both
communicate through the same underlying physical network. Id. The virtual
data plane provides any-to-all parallel connectivity for data transmissions
among the N end-nodes. Id. The virtual control plane is organized as a ring
that serially connects the N end-nodes, wherein the ring communicates
arbitration information among distributed-arbitration logic at each of the N
end-nodes. Id.

1. An optically switched network, comprising:
a passive optical switch with N inputs and N outputs,
wherein the passive optical switch can communicate different
wavelengths from each of the N inputs to each of the N outputs;
N end-nodes; and
N pairs of optical fibers, wherein each pair connects one
of the N end-nodes to one of the N inputs and one of the N
outputs of the passive optical switch;
wherein the optically switched network is organized into
two overlay networks over a same underlying physical network:
one for a virtual data plane and one for a virtual control plane,
wherein both the virtual data plane and the virtual control plane
communicate through the same underlying physical network;
wherein the virtual data plane is organized in a star
topology that provides any-to-all parallel connectivity for data
transmissions among the N end-nodes;
Appeal 2020-002932
Application 15/460,083

3
wherein each of the N end-nodes maintains packet-
queuing data structures for storing packets to be transmitted
across the optically switched network, wherein each packet-
queuing data structure is assigned a different wavelength λi
based on an output port of the optical switch to which the
packets are to be sent via the virtual data plane, and wherein
routing of the wavelength λi via the virtual data plane is
different for each output port of the optical switch;
wherein the virtual control plane is organized as a ring
that serially connects the N end-nodes, wherein the ring is used
to communicate arbitration information among distributed-
arbitration logic located at each of the N end-nodes, wherein the
distributed-arbitration logic at each of the N end-nodes decides
independently when and where to transmit data, while
guaranteeing that there is no wavelength contention at any
output port of the optical switch; and
wherein the virtual control plane uses one or more
control wavelengths λc to communicate the arbitration
information between consecutive end-nodes in the ring, wherein
an optical switch fabric of the optical switch steers the one or
more control wavelengths λc to a next consecutive active optical
switch port, wherein each optical switch port is connected to
each end-node through a pair of optical fibers.

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 7, 9, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 6,922,431 B1; iss. July 26,
2005) Davidson (US 6,160,653; iss. Dec. 12, 2000), Jiang (US
2016/0261364 A1; pub. Sept. 8, 2016) and Lee (US 5,754,777; iss. May 19,
1998). Final Act. 2–4.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 2,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed March 9, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed March 1, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 7, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-002932
Application 15/460,083

4
The Examiner has rejected claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Weber, Davidson, Jiang, Lee and Stevenson (US
2005/0013613 A1; pub. Jan. 20, 2005). Final Act. 5.
The Examiner has rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Weber, Davidson, Jiang, Lee, and Jones (US
2016/0091665 A1; pub. Mar. 31, 2016). Final Act. 6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 11, 13, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Weber, Davidson, Jiang, Lee, and Avida
(US 2004/0158623 A1; pub. Aug. 12, 2004). Final Act. 6–7.
The Examiner has rejected claims 14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Weber, Davidson, Jiang, Lee, Avida, and
Stevenson. Final Act. 7–8.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7 through 11, 13, 14, and 17 through
20.
Appellant argues that the combination of Weber, Davidson, Jiang, and
Lee does not teach an optically switched network
organized into two overlay networks over a same underlying
physical network: one for a virtual data plane and one for a
virtual control plane, wherein both the virtual data plane and the
virtual control plane communicate through the same underlying
physical network; wherein the virtual control plane is organized
as a ring that serially connects the N end-nodes, wherein the
virtual control plane uses one or more control wavelengths λc to
Appeal 2020-002932
Application 15/460,083

5
communicate the arbitration information between consecutive
end-nodes in the ring.
Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments focus on
Weber, which the Examiner relies upon to teach the disputed limitation.
Appeal Br. 12–13, Reply Br. Specifically, Appellant argues:
Weber discloses the star topology, with one casual mention of
“Token Rings” for the control channel. What Weber does not
disclose is any type of co-existence of the two topologies. One
could certainly understand that the entire disclosure of Weber
discusses the star topology, and when a solitary casual reference
is made to token rings, that this would imply that Weber’s
system could also be organized as a ring topology. Appellant
avers that this does not imply a hybrid system of two distinct
topologies on one physical network as disclosed in the instant
application.
Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner finds that Weber teaches that a token ring (organized as
a ring) can be used as the control channel, that the data plane is a star
topology and that they share the same optical network. Final Act. 3 (citing
Weber col. 9, ll. 25–30, and Fig. 3). Further, in response to Appellant’s
arguments, the Examiner cites a dictionary definition of “token ring” to
demonstrate that it is clear that a “token ring” can be wired as either a circle
or a star. Ans. 4 (citing Newton’s Telecom Dictionary).3 Thus, the
Examiner finds:
Since ‘token ring’ technology is well known in the art, the
reference made by Weber et al. to token ring would also imply
that the token ring could be implemented in a physical star
topology according to the dictionary. That is, the data plane is
implemented on a physical star network and the ‘token ring’ is
implemented on top of the same physical star network using

3 This dictionary definition was originally cited in an Advisory action dated
August 9, 2018.
Appeal 2020-002932
Application 15/460,083

6
token ring technology as explained in the dictionary; the token
ring operates like a ring and constitutes a virtual ring network,
or virtual control plane.
Ans. 4.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. Claim 1 recites an optical
network where there is a virtual data plane organized in a star topology, the
virtual control plane is organized in a ring and that two communicate
through the same underlying physical network. We concur with the
Examiner that Weber teaches an optical network in star topology. See, e.g.,
Weber Fig. 3 (item 7), and col. 3, ll. 43–57. Further, we concur with the
Examiner that Weber teaches that a token ring can also be used as for the
control channel. Weber col. 9, ll. 25–31. Weber says it “can also be used”
(emphasis added), which clearly implies that the token ring can be used with
the previously discussed star topology. The Examiner has demonstrated that
the skilled artisan would recognize that a ‘token ring’ is implemented
logically (i.e. virtually) as a ring but can be implemented on a network that
is wired as either a ring or a star. See Newton’s Telecom Dictionary 733
(1998) (definition of “token ring”: “A token ring LAN can be wired as
[either] a circle or a star. . . . Despite the wiring, a token ring LAN always
works logically as a circle.”).
Further, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments that
the “‘star’ topology is not a true star topology as is understand [sic] within
the Instant Application and with other networking protocols” and that “[o]ne
skilled in the art would understand that a Token Ring is a ring topology” as
they are merely attorney arguments lacking evidentiary support. Reply Br.
8–9. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory
Appeal 2020-002932
Application 15/460,083

7
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see
also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is
not evidence). We additionally note that Appellant argues that the Examiner
has not shown that the combination of the references does not teach the
“any-to-all parallel” connectivity as claimed. Reply Br. 9. These new
arguments could have been presented in the Appeal Brief, are not prompted
by the Examiner’s Answer, and are not based on any new arguments or
grounds of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. As a result, Appellant has
waived these untimely arguments because Appellant has not shown good
cause for belatedly raising the new arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)
(2019).
Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of Weber, Davidson, Jiang, and Lee
teach an optical network where there is a virtual data plane organized in a
star topology, the virtual control plane is organized in a ring and that two
communicate through the same underlying physical network as recited in
claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 7, 9, and 20 similarly rejected and grouped with
claim 1.
Appellant has not presented separate arguments with respect to the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 19.
Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the
same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1.

Appeal 2020-002932
Application 15/460,083

8
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7 through 11,
13, 14, and 17 through 20.

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U. S. C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 7, 9,
20
103 Weber, Davidson,
Jiang, Lee
1, 3, 7, 9, 20
4, 8 103 Weber, Davidson,
Jiang, Lee,
Stevenson
4, 8
10 103 Weber, Davidson,
Jiang, Lee, Jones
10
11, 13, 17,
19
103 Weber, Davidson,
Jiang, Lee, Avida
11, 13, 17,
19

14, 18 103 Weber, Davidson,
Jiang, Lee, Avida,
Stevenson
14, 18
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 7–
11, 13, 14,
17–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE

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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED