Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 24, 2020

2019004236 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2020)

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.
14/030,093 09/18/2013 Marc J. COCHRAN 20120744 7385
170055 7590 11/24/2020
VERIZON - HH
VERIZON PATENTING GROUP
1300 I STREET NW
SUITE 500 EAST
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
SOWA, TIMOTHY JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2020 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):
VZPatent170055@verizon.com
ptomail@harrityllp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARC J. COCHRAN and PAUL M. CURTIS
Appeal 2019-004236
Application 14/030,093
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 7–11, 14–17, and 20–27.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, and 19 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Verizon
Communications Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004236
Application 14/030,093

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to secure public connectivity to virtual
machines of a cloud computing environment. Spec., Title. Claim 1,
reproduced below with key limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a network device of a cloud computing
environment, a first packet destined for a first virtual machine of
a plurality of virtual machines of the cloud computing
environment,
the first packet being received:
from a user device, and
via a public network,
the network device being associated with a plurality of
data link layer networks, each one of the plurality of data link
layer networks being associated with a corresponding one of the
plurality of virtual machines,
the network device being associated with a first public
Internet Protocol (IP) address,
the first virtual machine being associated with a second
public IP address,
the second public IP address being different than the first
public IP address,
prior to receiving the first packet, the user device:
being subscribed to the first virtual machine,
being granted access to the second public IP address
based on the user device being subscribed to the first
virtual machine, and
including the second public IP address in the first
packet based on being granted access to the second public
IP address, and
Appeal 2019-004236
Application 14/030,093

3
the plurality of virtual machines, in the cloud computing
environment, being associated with separate public IP addresses
to provide isolation for the plurality of virtual machines and to
prevent spoofing by one or more of the plurality of virtual
machines,
all of the plurality of virtual machines in the cloud
computing environment being assigned public IP addresses, and
the network device including a table,
the network device using the table to match identifiers for
the plurality of virtual machines to the public IP addresses
assigned to the plurality of virtual machines;
determining, by the network device, the second public IP
address associated with the first virtual machine,
the second public IP address being determined:
based on the first packet, and
without performing network address translation on
the first packet;
providing, by the network device, the first packet to the
first virtual machine based on the second public IP address
associated with the first virtual machine,
the first virtual machine determining, based on the first
packet, that the user device is to be authenticated by a second
virtual machine, of the plurality of virtual machines,
the second virtual machine being associated with a third
public IP address, the first virtual machine generating a second
packet destined for the third public IP address,
the second packet including information requesting
authentication of the user device, and
the first virtual machine knowing the third public IP
address of the second virtual machine;
receiving, by the network device, the second packet from
the first virtual machine;
determining, by the network device, the third public IP
address associated with the second virtual machine,
Appeal 2019-004236
Application 14/030,093

4
the third public IP address being determined:
based on the second packet, and
without performing network address translation on
the second packet; and
providing, by the network device, the second packet to the
second virtual machine based on the third public IP address
associated with the second virtual machine,
the second virtual machine generating an authentication
result based on the second packet, and
the first virtual machine processing the first packet based
on the authentication result.
Appeal Br. 18–20 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence:
Name Reference Date
Dighe US 2009/0198800 A1 Aug. 6, 2009
Burch US 2011/0214176 A1 Sept. 1, 2011
Delco US 2012/0185914 A1 July 19, 2012
Leafe US 2012/0233668 A1 Sept. 13, 2012
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7–11, 14–17 and 20–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Delco, Leafe, Dighe, and Burch. Final
Act. 5.

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
Appeal 2019-004236
Application 14/030,093

5
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or
suggest the disputed limitation “all of the plurality of virtual machines in the
cloud computing environment being assigned public IP addresses,” as
recited in claim 1? (emphasis added).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Delco, Leafe, Dighe,
and Burch. The Examiner finds that Delco teaches most of the limitations of
claim 1. The Examiner finds, however, that Delco does not explicitly
disclose the disputed limitation “all of the plurality of virtual machines in the
cloud computing environment being assigned public IP addresses.” The
Examiner turns to Leafe to address this deficiency. Final Act. 10 (citing
Leafe, Fig. 5a; ¶¶ 68, 74–75, 82–86, 91–93). In relying on Leafe, the
Examiner explains that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase
“all of the plurality of virtual machines in the cloud computing environment
being assigned public IP addresses” as “not [requiring that] every single
virtual machine in an entire cloud computing environment must be publicly
addressable.” Ans. 3–4. Applying this interpretation, the Examiner finds
that Leafe discloses the use of both public and private IP address
assignments, and the public assignments do not require NAT (i.e., they are
assigned a public IP address). Ans. 5.
Appellant asserts that the cited sections of Leafe do not disclose or
suggest the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 11–13. More specifically,
Appellant argues the Examiner’s claim interpretation is unreasonable
because it results in the claim term “all” to mean some or all of the virtual
machines are assigned public IP addresses. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues
Appeal 2019-004236
Application 14/030,093

6
the Examiner’s interpretation is contrary to the ordinary meaning of “all,”
and “there is no disclosure in the present application indicating that any of
the plurality of virtual machines could be other than assigned a public
address. In fact, the paragraph cited by the Examiner to support his position,
i.e., paragraph 0041 of the specification, indicates the opposite.” Reply
Br. 3.
Appellant specifically argues:
Appellant submits that an optional assignment of a public IP
address to a public VM within the network is not equivalent to
“all of the plurality of virtual machines in the cloud computing
environment being assigned public IP addresses,” as recited in
claim 1 (emphasis added). LEAFE et al. discloses public VMs
and private VMs and does not disclose or suggest the assignment
of a public IP address to a private VM. In sharp contrast, LEAFE
et al. states that private VMs are associated with private IP
addresses. The association of public and private IP addresses
with public and private VMs, respectively, results in a system
that requires NAT, which is specifically what the present
invention seeks to avoid. Accordingly, LEAFE et al. does not
teach or suggest that “all of the plurality of virtual machines in
the cloud computing environment being assigned public IP
addresses,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
Reply Br. 4–5.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Specifically, we agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has erred in interpreting the phrase “all of
the plurality of virtual machines in the cloud computing environment being
assigned public IP addresses” as encompassing Leafe’s collection of both
public and private virtual machines, where the private virtual machines do
not have assigned public IP addresses. See Leafe, Fig. 5a; ¶¶ 68, 74–75, 82–
86, 91–93. That is, the Examiner has erred in concluding “all of the plurality
of virtual machines” requires that some, but not necessarily all, virtual
Appeal 2019-004236
Application 14/030,093

7
machines have assigned public IP addresses. We agree with Appellant that
the Examiner’s interpretation of the phrase “all of the plurality of virtual
machines” is unreasonable and inconsistent with the plain meaning of the
word “all,” and nothing in Appellant’s Specification indicates that any other
meaning should apply. (emphasis added). See In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871
F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Applying the correctly construed limitation, we do not find a teaching
in the Examiner’s cited sections of Leafe that would suggest all the virtual
machines have assigned public IP addresses. To the contrary Leafe teaches
that the virtual machines that are private do not have public IP addresses
assigned. See Leafe, ¶¶ 82–86. As such, we agree with Appellant that Leafe
fails to teach or suggest “all of the plurality of virtual machines in the cloud
computing environment being assigned public IP addresses,” as recited in
claim 1. (emphasis added). We further note the Examiner does not
sufficiently articulate reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified Leafe to teach “all of the plurality of virtual machines
in the cloud computing environment being assigned public IP addresses.”
Final Act. 12.
Therefore, on this record, we find a preponderance of the evidence
supports Appellant’s arguments regarding the contested claim limitation of
“all of the plurality of virtual machines in the cloud computing environment
being assigned public IP addresses” as being construed in an unreasonably
broad manner, and based on that unreasonable interpretation, erroneously
mapped by the Examiner to the prior art.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of each
independent claim 1, as well as of claims 8, and 15 on appeal, which recite
Appeal 2019-004236
Application 14/030,093

8
the dispositive disputed limitation in commensurate form. Because we have
reversed all independent claims on appeal, for the same reasons, we reverse
the rejection of all dependent claims on appeal.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 7–
11, 14–17,
20–27
103 Delco, Leafe,
Dighe, Burch
1, 2, 4, 7–
11, 14–17,
20–27

REVERSED