`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`EXHIBIT
`1013
`
`1013
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`10/034,197
`
`12/28/2001
`
`Sanchaita Datta
`
`3003.2.9A
`
`7746
`
`oamg LAW FIRM —
`°2’°“°”
`759°
`W
`2552 South Wilshire Circle
`NGUYEN, THU HA T
`SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2453
`
`NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/02/2012
`
`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):
`JOHN @ OGILVIELAWFIRM.COM
`
`john. ogilvie @ comcast.net
`
`Page 1
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`Page 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Ex parte SANCHAITA DATTA and RAGULA BHASKAR
`
`Appeal 2011—010799
`Application 10/03 4, 1 97
`Technology Center 2400
`
`Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and STEPHEN
`
`C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
`
`Examiner’s rejection of claims 22-40. Claims 1-21 have been cancelled.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
`
`The disclosed invention relates generally to routing information over
`
`multiple independent parallel private networks (Spec. 1).
`
`Independent claim 22 reads as follows:
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Page 2
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011—010799
`Application 10/034,197
`
`A controller which controls access to multiple
`22.
`independent networks in a parallel network configuration, the
`controller comprising:
`a site interface connecting the controller to a site by a single
`logical connection;
`at least two network interfaces connecting the controller to
`respective independent parallel networks; and
`a packet path selector which selects between the network
`interfaces to split a message from the site between the networks by
`concurrently sending different packets of the message over different
`network interfaces without requiring firewall usage;
`whereby the controller uses multiple networks to concurrently
`carry different pieces of a given message so that unauthorized
`interception of message packets on fewer than all of the networks
`used to carry the message will not provide the total content of the
`
`message.
`
`The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
`
`support of the rejections:
`
`Pearce
`
`Kitai
`Goldszmidt
`
`Albright
`Dutta
`
`US 5,910,951
`
`US 5,948,069
`US 6,195,680 B1
`
`US 6,209,039 B1
`US 6,546,423 B1
`
`Jun. 8, 1999
`
`Sep. 7, 1999
`Feb. 27, 2001
`
`Mar. 27, 2001
`Apr. 8, 2003
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), the Examiner rejects claims 33, 35, and 40
`
`as being anticipated by Kitai.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`claims 22, 24, 25, and 29 over Kitai and Dutta;
`
`claims 23, 28, and 30-32 over Kitai, Dutta, and Albright;
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Page 3
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011—010799
`Application 10/034,197
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`1)
`
`claims 26 and 27 over Kitai, Dutta, and Goldszmidt;
`
`claim 34 over Kitai and Albright;
`
`claims 36, 37 and 39 over Kitai and Pearce; and
`
`claim 38 over Kitai, Pearce, and Albright.
`
`Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 22-40?
`
`ISSUE
`
`FINDING OF FACT
`
`Kitai discloses “parallel communication” in which “data in the buffer
`
`6030 is divided into three blocks of data for every segment length” (col. 14,
`
`11. 36-3 7) and distributed over multiple communication paths “to the buffers
`
`6031, 6032, and 6033” (col. 14, l. 38 and Fig. 17) and further sent on
`
`“communication path 6110 respectively through the communication paths
`
`6012, 6013, and 6014” (col. 14, 11. 48-50 and Fig. 17).
`
`PRINCIPLES OF LAW
`
`In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
`
`reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
`
`claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone V. Medicis Pharm.
`
`Corp, 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
`
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`3
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Page 4
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011—010799
`Application 10/034,197
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
`
`(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham V. John Deere C0., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
`
`18 (1966).
`
`“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
`
`is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
`
`KSR Int’! C0. V. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Claim 33 recites multiple parallel networks and a selector that splits a
`
`message between the parallel networks by concurrently sending different
`
`packets of the message over different network interfaces. Appellants argue
`
`that Kitai fails to disclose this feature.
`
`As stated above, Kitai discloses splitting a message into segments and
`
`sending the segments over respective (and parallel) communication paths
`
`(FF). We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure is the same as splitting
`
`a message between parallel networks by concurrently sending different
`
`packets of the message over different network interfaces, as recited in claim
`
`33.
`
`Appellants argue that the Examiner “treats ‘concurrently’ and
`
`‘parallel” as if they mean the same thing” (App. Br. 5) but that the term
`
`“concurrently” is actually used by Appellant “to describe a use of networks”
`
`(App. Br. 6). Even assuming that the term “concurrently” and “parallel”
`
`have different meanings and that “concurrently” refers to “a use of
`
`4
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Page 5
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Appeal 201 l—0l0799
`Application 10/03 4, l 97
`
`networks” as Appellants argue, Appellants have nevertheless failed to
`
`adequately demonstrate that Kitai fails to disclose “concurrent use of
`
`networks” since, as described above, that is precisely what Kitai appears to
`
`disclose (i.e., splitting a message and “concurrently” sending the segments
`
`of the split message over different network interfaces and parallel
`
`communication paths during “use of the networks” — see FF).
`
`Appellants also argue that Kitai fails to disclose ‘“a single logical
`
`connection’ between the site and the inventive controller” (App. Br. 7) but
`
`does not adequately explain how the claimed “single logical connection”
`
`differs from Kitai’s single logical connection (Kitai, Fig. 17) illustrated as
`
`transmitting data from server 3000 or how the Kitai’s connection in which
`
`data is collectively received and transmitted to one (or “single”) desired
`
`destination is not a “single logical connection.”
`
`Appellants also argue that Kitai fails to disclose splitting a message
`
`because, according to Appellants, “Kitai teaches splitting packets, not
`
`splitting messages” (App. Br. 7). As described above, Kitai discloses
`
`splitting data into segments (FF). Appellants have not indicated an explicit
`
`definition of the term “message” in the Specification or how a “message” as
`
`claimed differs from the “data” of Kitai. In the absence of an explicit
`
`definition, we adopt a broad but reasonable construction of the term
`
`“message” in light of the Specification to include “data.” Since Kitai
`
`discloses splitting “data” (i.e., “messages”) and Appellants have not
`
`sufficiently pointed out any differences between the claimed “message” and
`
`5
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Page 6
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Appeal 201 l-010799
`Application 10/03 4, l 97
`
`Kitai’s “data,” we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that Kitai
`
`supposedly fails to disclose this feature.
`
`Claims 22 and 40 recite similar features as claim 33. Appellants do
`
`not provide additional arguments in support of dependent claims 23-32 and
`
`34-39. Appellants also do not provide additional arguments with respect to
`
`any of claims 22-40 with respect to Dutta, Albright, Goldszmidt, or Pearce.
`
`CONCLUSION OF LAW
`
`We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 22-40.
`
`DECISION
`
`We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22-40.
`
`No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
`
`this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.l36(a)(l)(iV).
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Page 7
`
`Viptela, Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`Page 7
`
`