SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021000024 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

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. 15/877,026 01/22/2018 Sahul Hameed Abdul Kader JAILANI 10060.000500 5028 149898 7590 03/30/2022 Law Office of Patrick D. Benedicto P.O. BOX 641330 SAN JOSE, CA 95164-1330 EXAMINER ESMAEILIAN, MAJID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SAHUL HAMEED ABDUL KADER JAILANI ____________ Appeal 2021-000024 Application 15/877,026 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-16. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Super Micro Computer, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-000024 Application 15/877,026 2 The present invention relates generally to communication ports that are wired to switch ports of two separate network switches. See Spec. Abstr. Claims 1 and 9, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, are representative: 1. A computer network comprising: a first network switch; a second network switch; and a third network switch having a first switch port that is linked to a first switch port of the first network switch over a first wired connection, the third network switch further having a second switch port that is linked to a first switch port of the second network switch over a second wired connection, wherein the first network switch is adapted to receive a link layer discovery protocol (LLDP) packet over the first wired connection, scan the LLDP packet for a network management type-length-value (TLV), and add the first switch port of the first network switch to a port channel aggregation that includes the first switch port of the second network switch in response to finding the network management TLV in the LLDP packet. 9. A computer-implemented method of automatically configuring a multi-chassis link aggregation in network switches, the method comprising: receiving a link layer discovery protocol (LLDP) packet at a first switch port of a first network switch, the first switch port of the first network switch being connected to a first switch port of a second network switch; determining, from contents of the LLDP packet, that the second network switch and the first network switch are managed by a same network manager; and in response to determining that the first and second network switches are managed by the same network manager, adding the first switch port of the first network switch to a port channel aggregation. Appeal 2021-000024 Application 15/877,026 3 REFERENCES The references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Sivasankar US 2014/0133486 A1 May 15, 2014 Ernstrom US 2014/0369186 A1 Dec. 18, 2014 Wang US 2016/0014142 A1 Jan. 14, 2016 Natarajan US 2016/0301608 A1 Oct. 13, 2016 REJECTIONS R1. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Natarajan and Sivasankar. Final Act. 5-10. R2. Claim 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Natarajan and Wang. Id. at 11-21. R3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Natarajan, Sivasankar, and Ernstrom. Id. at 21-23. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Claims 1-8 Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “add the first switch port of the first network switch to port channel aggregation that includes the first switch port of the second network switch in response to finding the network management TLV in the LLDP packet.” Claim 1 (emphasis added). Regarding the aforementioned claim limitation, Appellant contends: Appeal 2021-000024 Application 15/877,026 4 Natarajan teaches forming switch ports of a single network device into a sub-LAG. . . . This teaching of Natarajan is also evident in Natarajan FIG. 2, showing the ports 0 and 1 of the router 130 to the VLT peer X being aggregated into a sub-LAG 250 . . . Each sub-LAG comprises ports of the router 130, i.e., a single router. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant points out that “[i]n marked contrast [to the cited art], in the embodiment of claim 1, switch ports of two different network switches are aggregated from network management TLV information of the LLDP packet.” Id. at 6. Although “Appellant agrees that Sivasankar discloses a network switch that is connected to different network switches” (Appeal Br. 6), Appellant contends that “Sivasankar does not cure the deficiency of Natarajan regarding how to aggregate switch ports of two different network switches.” Id. In other words, Appellant contends that both Natarajan and Sivasankar fail to aggregate ports from different network switches. We agree with Appellant. Here, the Examiner relies on Natarajan to teach using LLDP information, including the TLV, to aggregate ports, albeit ports from a single switch. See Final Act. 6, citing Natarajan ¶¶ 41-42, FIGs 3A, 4A. For example, Natarajan merely discloses using “LLDP organization-specific TLV” information and sending “ports 0 and 1 426 an LLDP packet . . . indicating that theses two links 426 lead to a single physical device.” Natarajan ¶ 42. Thus, although Natarajan teaches aggregating ports using LLDP information, including TLV, the ports that are aggregated are from a single switch. In an attempt to cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Natarajan, the Examiner imports Sivasankar to teach “forming link aggregation groups Appeal 2021-000024 Application 15/877,026 5 wherein a central switch . . . is connected via different ports, and links, to different other switch ports.” See Final Act. 7, citing Sivasankar ¶ 36, FIG. 2. Although we agree with the Examiner that Sivasankar discloses different switches/ports, and like Natarajan, discloses aggregating ports into groups, we find that, also like Natarajan, Sivasankar fails to aggregate ports from different switches, as required by the claims. For example, Sivasankar discloses “an MLAG 120 that includes ports 112A, 112B, 112C, and 112D as member ports” (Sivasankar ¶ 24), “switch 102 supports a sub-LAG 202 that includes ports 112A and 112B as member ports and a sub-LAG 204 that includes ports 112C and 112D as its member ports” (id.) and “a main LAG 120 that includes all the member ports of the three sub-LAGs.” Sivasankar ¶ 25; see also Fig. 2. In other words, each of the aggregated groups of ports in Sivasankar, i.e., MLAG 120, sub-LAG 202, and sub-LAG 204, include ports from a single switch 102, as opposed to having ports from different switches. As a result, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Sivasankar cures the deficiencies of Natarajan because both references fail to teach adding the first switch port of the first network switch to a port channel aggregation that includes a first switch port of the second network switch, as recited in claim 1. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments regarding claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-8 which are dependent thereon. Appeal 2021-000024 Application 15/877,026 6 Claims 9-16 Unlike independent claim 1, independent claims 9 and 13 do not recite adding “the first switch port of the first network switch to a port channel aggregation that includes a first switch port of the second network switch.” See claims 1, 9, 13. Rather, claims 9 and 13 recite “adding the first switch port of the first network switch to a port channel aggregation.” See claims 9, 13. Therefore, our rationale above for reversing claims 1-8 is not applicable to claims 9-16. Claim 9 recites, inter alia, “in response to determining that the first and second network switches are managed by the same network manager, adding the first port of the first network switch to a port channel aggregation.” See claim 9; see also claim 13 (reciting a corresponding limitation). Regarding this claimed feature, Appellant contends that “Natarajan teaches a very different condition for aggregating ports. Natarajan teaches aggregating ports when the TLV of an LLDP packet indicates that the ports are connected to the same peer device.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further contends that Wang does not cure the deficiency of Natarajan because “Wang does not teach or suggest conditions for adding a switch port to a port channel aggregation.” Id. at 11. In other words, Appellant contends that neither Natarajan nor Wang teaches the claimed condition for performing the port aggregation, i.e., having the same network manager. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that Wang was relied upon “to show that LLDP provides neighbor discovery that includes information of a device such as its main capabilities, its management address.” Ans. 25, citing Wang ¶¶ 4, 102. The Examiner concludes that “[i]t is understood that when receiving LLDP Appeal 2021-000024 Application 15/877,026 7 from different devices, the receiving device can determine if they have the same network management address.” Id. The Examiner further finds that Wang teaches a “link aggregation TLV” and concludes that “it is understood that ‘a link aggregation TLV’ of the LLDP will cause the function of ‘link aggregation’ to be performed.” Ans. 26. In other words, the Examiner concludes that because Wang provides LLDP information to its neighbors that includes a “Management Address TLV” and a “Link Aggregation TLV” (see Wang ¶ 102), the receiving devices can determine if they have the same manager and link aggregation can be performed. Although the Examiner’s conclusion about determining whether they have the same manager is reasonable, the Examiner has missed a key requirement, i.e., the Examiner has not shown that the cited disclosures illustrate a nexus between determining if they have the same manager and adding a port of the first network switch to a port channel aggregation, as required by claim 9. Stated differently, claim 9 requires in response to determining that the switches are managed by the same network manager, adding the port of the first network switch to a port channel aggregation. At best, the Examiner shows that Wang teaches or suggests determining whether switches share the same manager and being able to link ports together, but has not shown a causal link between the two functions. As for the Examiner’s discussion about “Sivasankar” (see Ans. 26- 27), we note that the Examiner rejects claims 9-16 under Natarajan in view of Wang, not under Sivasankar. As such, we shall not reach the merits of the Examiner’s improper reliance on Sivasankar. As a result, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Wang cures the deficiencies of Natarajan. Here, the Examiner fails to demonstrate that Appeal 2021-000024 Application 15/877,026 8 either reference teach adding the first switch port of the first network switch to a port channel aggregation in response to determining . . . the same network manager, as recited in claims 9 and 13. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments regarding claim 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 9 and of claims 10-16 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7 103 Natarajan, Sivasankar 1-7 8 103 Natarajan, Sivasankar, Ernstrom 8 9-16 103 Natarajan, Wang 9-16 Overall Outcome 1-16 REVERSED