`
`
`
`OFFICE UNITED STA IBS p A IBNT AND TRADEMARK
`
`UNITED STA TES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`
`
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`22313-1450 Alexandria., Virginia
`
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`11/123,801 05/06/2005
`
`Ronen Solomon
`
`06727/0202901-US0 8375
`
`7590
`7278
`12/11/2008
`DARBY & DARBY P.C.
`P.O.BOX770
`
`Church Street Station
`New York, NY 10008-0770
`
`EXAMINER
`
`
`
`KAVLESKI,RYANC
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2419
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/11/2008 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)
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 1 of 17
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`11/123,801
`
`SOLOMON, RONEN
`
`Examiner
`
`Art Unit
`
`Ryan C. Kavleski
`
`2419
`
`
`Period for Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`--The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE ;l_ MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`- If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`
`
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1 )IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on
`
`
`05 August 2008.
`
`
`2a)IZ! This action is FINAL.
`2b)0 This action is non-final.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3)0 Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`Ex parte Quayle,
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`in the application. 4)[8J Claim(s) pending 1-32 is/are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4a) Of the above claim(s) __ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`5)0 Claim(s) __ is/are allowed.
`
`6)[8J Claim(s) rejected.1-32 is/are
`
`
`
`7)0 Claim(s) __ is/are objected to.
`
`
`
`
`
`8)0 Claim(s) __ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`
`10)0 The drawing(s) filed on __ is/are: a)O accepted or b)O objected to by the Examiner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11 )0 The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PT0-152.
`
`
`
`
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`
`
`12)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a)O All b)O Some* c)O None of:
`1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`
`
`
`Application No. __ .documents have been received in 2.0 Certified copies of the priority
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.0 Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`
`
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17 .2(a)).
`
`
`
`
`*See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`1)[8J Notice of References
`Cited (PTO-892)
`
`
`Review (PTO-948)2)0 Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing
`3) [8J Information
`
`
`Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date __ .
`
`4) 0 Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __ .
`
`5)0 Notice of Informal Patent Application
`
`6) 0 Other: __ .
`
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`
`
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20081121
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 2 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`Response to Amendments
`
`
`
`1. This communication is in response to Applicant's reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on 8/5/2008. Claims 1,4, 15, and 18 were amended, claims 29-32 were added and
`
`
`
`
`
`claims 1-32 remain pending.
`
`
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC§ 103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can
`
`
`
`be found in a prior Office action.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Claims 1,2,4-10, 14-16, 18-24, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`being unpatentable over Bruckman et al. (US 2004/0228278)(Bruckman hereafter) in
`
`
`
`
`
`view of Ramia et al. (US 2005/0125490)(Ramia hereafter).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 1, 15,31, and 32, Bruckman teaches a method for processing data
`
`
`
`
`
`packets in a communication network, comprising:
`
`
`
`establishing a for a flow (connection) of the data packets through the communication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`network (a connection is established for the transmission of data between
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`endpoints)[paragraph 0027], at a node along the path (system A)[refer Fig. 1; 22], which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is connected to a subsequent node [refer Fig. 1; 24] along the path by a Link
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Aggregation (LAG) group [refer Fig. 1; 36][paragraph 0048] comprising a plurality of
`
`
`
`
`
`aggregated physical ports (an aggregation group consists of physical links)[paragraph
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0048].
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 3 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose in a current embodiment that the node
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`selects a port from among the LAG group to serve as part of the path.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`However, Bruckman discloses that within the prior art that a distributor with link
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aggregation, as according to the 802.3 standard, takes information carried in an
`
`
`
`
`
`Ethernet frame and makes a decision to a physical port to which a frame of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conversation should be sent when in communication with end stations [paragraph
`
`
`
`0004].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art given the
`
`
`
`teachings of Bruckman for a system using link aggregation to, in accordance to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`802.3 standard, to select and maintain a particular physical port to send data frames in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a conversation to an end station [refer Bruckman; abstract].
`
`
`
`
`
`However Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose choosing a label responsively to a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`selected port, attaching the label to the data packets in the flow at a point on the path
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`upstream from the node, and upon receiving the data packets at the node, switching the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data packets to the subsequent node through the selected port responsively to the
`
`
`
`label.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 2 and 16, Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose that a path
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises a tunnel through the communication network.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ramia teaches a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) system that uses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`downstream nodes to determine labels and distribute the label information upstream
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[paragraph 0028], the label stack (label) in a packet defining the path (nested tunnel) of
`
`
`
`
`
`the packet through an MPLS network [paragraph 0038]. Ramia teaches that the labels
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 4 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are assigned to data packets belonging to a particular forwarding equivalence class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(FEC), which is a group of packets forwarded in the same manner or over the same
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`path [paragraph 0005], and the labels can be unique to a certain interface or port when
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`assigned [paragraph 0027]. Ramia further teaches that when a label switching router
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(LSR) receives a packet, the LSR will use the label as an index to a forwarding table
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and determine an outbound label and interface which will specify a next hop for a
`
`
`
`
`
`packet [paragraph 0024].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art given the
`
`
`
`teachings of Bruckman for a node comprising of LAG ports to transmit data over a path
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with an allocated bandwidth [refer Bruckman; abstract] to combine with the teachings of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ramia to implement MPLS on the node as an LSR. One would be motivated to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combine the teachings because MPLS would allow the data packets to be forwarded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from the node using LAG while using capabilities such as quality of service and traffic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`management that would be available with MPLS labels [refer Ramia; paragraph 0002
`
`
`
`
`
`and paragraph 0005].
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 4 and 18, Bruckman teaches that the LAG group, conforms to an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IEEE 802.3ad specification (the link aggregation system operates in accordance to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IEEE 802.3 standard)[paragraph 0048 and paragraph 0075].
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 5 and 19, Bruckman teaches that in establishing the path comprises
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receiving a request to establish the path from a preceding node in the communication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 5 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`network which is located upstream along the path (when setting up a new connection
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(path), a request is received by the system or equipment to allocate resources [refer
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 1; 22][paragraph 0055]).
`
`
`
`
`
`However, Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose that attaching the label comprises
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sending the label to the preceding node, to be attached to the packets sent by the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`preceding node.
`
`
`
`Ramia teaches a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) system that uses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`downstream nodes to determine labels and distribute the label information upstream
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[paragraph 0028], the label stack (label) in a packet defining the path (nested tunnel) of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the packet through an MPLS network [paragraph 0038]. Ramia teaches that the labels
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are assigned to data packets belonging to a particular forwarding equivalence class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(FEC), which is a group of packets forwarded in the same manner or over the same
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`path [paragraph 0005], and the labels can be unique to a certain interface or port when
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`assigned [paragraph 0027]. Ramia further teaches that when a label edge router
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(LER)(preceding node) attaches a label to a packet and fowards the packet to a next
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hope (one of the LSRs) [paragraph 0023].
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art given the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teachings of Bruckman for a node comprising of LAG ports to transmit data over a path
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with an allocated bandwidth [refer Bruckman; abstract] to combine with the teachings of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ramia to implement MPLS on the node as an LSR. One would be motivated to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combine the teachings because MPLS would allow the data packets to be forwarded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from the node using LAG while using capabilities such as quality of service and traffic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 6 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`management that would be available with MPLS labels [refer Ramia; paragraph 0002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and paragraph 0005].
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 6 and 20, Bruckman teaches that in establishing the path comprises
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receiving an indication of a requested service property (service level agreement) of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`flow (the connection admission control (CAC) entity manages the allocation of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bandwidth to customers [paragraph 0050] using the guaranteed and allocated excess
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bandwidth as required by a service level agreement [paragraph 0052]).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose within the current embodiment that selecting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a port comprises assigning the port to the flow so as to comply with the requested
`
`
`
`service property.
`
`
`
`
`
`However, Bruckman discloses that within the prior art that a distributor with link
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aggregation, as according to the 802.3 standard, takes information carried in an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ethernet frame and makes a decision to a physical port to which a frame of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conversation should be sent when in communication with end stations [paragraph
`
`
`
`
`
`0005].
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art given the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teachings of Bruckman for the CAC to manage flows as required by their service level
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`agreements using link aggregation to, in accordance to the 802.3 standard, to select
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and maintain a particular physical port to send data frames in a conversation to an end
`
`
`
`
`
`station as specified by the service level agreement in the packets [refer Bruckman;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`paragraph 00014].
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 7 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 7 and 21, Bruckman teaches that the requested service
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`property (service level agreement) comprises at least one of a guaranteed bandwidth, a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`peak bandwidth and a class-of-service (a service level agreement is between a network
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`service provider and a customer to specify a committed bandwidth or information rate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that is guaranteed for a customer, which can also generally specify peak information
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rate or bandwidth)[paragraph 0013].
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 8 and 22, Bruckman teaches links having a maximum available
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bandwidth out of the plurality of aggregated links (ports) (each line card which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises of the multiple ports serving a respective link, connections are weighted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`based on a bandwidth contracted for a user in the user's service level agreement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[paragraph 0072].
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 9 and 23, Bruckman teaches links having a minimum available
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bandwidth out of the plurality of aggregated links (ports), which is still greater than or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`equal to a guaranteed bandwidth (connections are weighted based on a bandwidth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`contracted for a user in the user's service level agreement [paragraph 0072]).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose within the embodiment that a port is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`selected to meet the bandwidth requirements.
`
`
`
`
`
`However, Bruckman discloses that within the prior art that a distributor with link
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aggregation, as according to the 802.3 standard, takes information carried in an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ethernet frame and makes a decision to a physical port to which a frame of a
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 8 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conversation should be sent when in communication with end stations [paragraph
`
`
`
`0005]. Bruckman further discloses within the prior art that the conversations that define
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a flow are the communication from one end station to another [paragraph 0004].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art given the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teachings of Bruckman for the CAC to manage flows as required by a customer's (end
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`station) service level agreements using link aggregation to, in accordance to the 802.3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`standard, to select and maintain a particular physical port to send data frames in a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conversation to an end station as specified by the service level agreement in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`packets [refer Bruckman; paragraph 00014].
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 10 and 24, Bruckman that switching the data packets
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises mapping the data packets to the selected port responsively to a label
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(header)(a distributer determines the link over which to send a frame based on the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information in the frame header [paragraph 0058], which comprises of using a hash
`
`
`
`
`
`function on the header to, as known in the prior art, to generate a port number
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[paragraph 0012]).
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 14 and 28, Bruckman teaches allocating another port from among the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plurality of aggregated ports, different from the selected port, to serve as a backup port
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(an aggregator controling link aggregation allows for the multiple links or ports in a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`group to continue operation in the event of a link failure)[paragraph 0057]; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`responsively to a service interruption (failure) of the selected port (link), replacing the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 9 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`selected port with the backup port as part of the path (if a link fails in an aggregation
`
`
`
`group, the remaining links will be allocated to carry the failed link traffic)[paragraph
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0067][paragraph 0074].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 29 and 30, Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose that a node
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises a Label Switched Router (LSR).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ramia teaches a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) system that uses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`downstream nodes to determine labels and distribute the label information upstream
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[paragraph 0028], the label stack (label) in a packet defining the path (nested tunnel) of
`
`
`
`
`
`the packet through an MPLS network [paragraph 0038]. Ramia teaches that the labels
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are assigned to data packets belonging to a particular forwarding equivalence class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(FEC), which is a group of packets forwarded in the same manner or over the same
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`path [paragraph 0005], and the labels can be unique to a certain interface or port when
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`assigned [paragraph 0027]. Ramia further teaches that when a label switching router
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(LSR) receives a packet, the LSR will use the label as an index to a forwarding table
`
`
`
`and determine an outbound label and interface which will specify a next hop for a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`packet [paragraph 0024].
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art given the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teachings of Bruckman for a node comprising of LAG ports to transmit data over a path
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with an allocated bandwidth [refer Bruckman; abstract] to combine with the teachings of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ramia to implement MPLS on the node as an LSR. One would be motivated to
`
`
`
`combine the teachings because MPLS would allow the data packets to be forwarded
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 10 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`
`
`from the node using LAG while using capabilities such as quality of service and traffic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`management that would be available with MPLS labels [refer Ramia; paragraph 0002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and paragraph 0005].
`
`
`
`2. Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bruckman et al. in view of Ramia et al. in further view of Goguen et al. (US
`
`
`
`
`
`6,665,273)(Goguen herafter).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 3 and 17, Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose that the tunnel
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises a MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) tunnel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ramia teaches a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) system that uses
`
`
`
`
`
`downstream nodes to determine labels and distribute the label information upstream
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[paragraph 0028], the label stack (label) in a packet defining the path (nested tunnel) of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the packet through an MPLS network [paragraph 0038].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`However, Ramia doesn't explicitly disclose that establishing the path comprises
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receiving and responding to a RSVP-TE (Resource Reservation Protocol) PATH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`message.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Goguen teaches in the prior art that in creating traffic engineering (TE) paths or
`
`
`
`
`
`tunnels with specified label switched paths in MPLS, a Resource Reseveration Protocol
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(RSVP) is used to construct the tunnels by requesting for a label [column 2 lines 19-40].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 11 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art given the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teachings of Bruckman for a node comprising of LAG ports to transmit data over a path
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with an allocated bandwidth [refer Bruckman; abstract] to combine with the teachings of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ramia to implement MPLS on the node as an LSR. One would be motivated to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combine the teachings because MPLS would allow the data packets to be forwarded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from the node using LAG while using capabilities such as quality of service and traffic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`management that would be available with MPLS labels [refer Ramia; paragraph 0002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and paragraph 0005].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art given the
`
`
`
`teachings of Ramia for an MPLS system of setting up tunnels for guaranteed bandwidth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to use RSVP to request a label for a path or tunnel as disclosed by Goguen. One would
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be motivated to combine the teachings because in doing so would allow label switched
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`routers to reserve network resources for quality of service guarantees for flows [refer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Goguen; column 1 lines 42-56].
`
`
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being3. Claims 11-13,25-27,31 and 32 are rejected
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`unpatentable over Bruckman et al. in view of Ramia et al. in further view of Larson et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`(US 2004/0107285)(Larson herafter).
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 11,25,31, and 32, Bruckman teaches that mapping the data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`packets comprises applying a hashing function to the header so as to determine a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`number of the selected port (a distributer determines the link over which to send a frame
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 12 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`
`
`based on the information in the frame header [paragraph 0058], which comprises of
`
`
`
`
`
`using a hash function on the header to, as known in the prior art, to generate a port
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`number [paragraph 0012]).
`
`
`
`
`
`However Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose choosing a header or label
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises applying an inverse of the hashing function to the number of the Selected
`
`
`
`
`
`port.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Larson teaches a hashing function with a one-to-one mapping that generates a
`
`
`
`sync portion from a sync value, a "private" header which is an inner header for a packet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`contains an encrypted (hashed) link key as part of a sync (port number) [paragraph
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0178]. Larson further teaches that when a packet is received by a node, the inner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`header is decrypted by using a decryption (hashing) function to extract the sync portion,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and if a sync portion is still valid, it is extracted from memory and added to a packet,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which could be an inverse hash [paragraph 0178].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art given the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`teachings of Bruckman for performing hashing on a header (label) to determine a port
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`number to combine with the teachings of Larson for using an inverse hash function in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`memory to be able to produce a port number in a header. One would be motivated to
`
`
`
`
`
`combine because in performing a hashing function (decryption) on a header or label to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`find information, i.e. port number, devices in communication would be cable of having
`
`
`
`
`
`an inverse hashing function to create a hashed (encrypted) header or label containing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the port number for distributed packets.
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 13 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 12 and 26, Bruckman teaches extracting the one or more bits
`
`
`
`from the label (header) so as to determine the number of the selected port (a distributer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determines the link over which to send a frame based on the information in the frame
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`header [paragraph 0058], which comprises of using a hash function on the header to, as
`
`
`
`known in the prior art, to generate a port number [paragraph 0012]).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`However, Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose choosing a label (header)
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises inserting into the label one or more bits that correspond to a number of the
`
`
`
`
`
`selected port.
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 13 and 27, Bruckman teaches extracting a number from the
`
`
`
`
`
`memory responsively to the label (header) so as to determine the number of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`selected port (a distributer determines the link over which to send a frame based on the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information in the frame header [paragraph 0058], which comprises of using a hash
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`function on the header to, as known in the prior art, to generate a port number
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[paragraph 0012]).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`However, Bruckman doesn't explicitly disclose storing the label (header) and a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`number of the selected port in a memory.
`
`
`
`
`
`Larson teaches a hashing function with a one-to-one mapping that generates a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sync portion from a sync value, a "private" header which is an inner header for a packet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`contains an encrypted (hashed) link key as part of a sync (port number) [paragraph
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0178]. Larson further teaches that when a packet is received by a node, the inner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`header is decrypted by using a decryption (hashing) function to extract the sync portion,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 14 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`
`
`and if a sync portion is still valid, it is extracted from memory and added to a packet,
`
`
`
`
`
`which could be an inverse hash [paragraph 0178].
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art given the
`
`
`
`teachings of Bruckman for performing hashing on a header (label) to determine a port
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`number to combine with the teachings of Larson for using an inverse hash function in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`memory to be able to produce a port number in a header. One would be motivated to
`
`
`
`
`
`combine because in performing a hashing function (decryption) on a header or label to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`find information, i.e. port number, devices in communication would be cable of having
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an inverse hashing function to create a hashed (encrypted) header or label containing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the port number for distributed packets.
`
`
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 8/5/2008, with respect to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rejections of claim 1 and 15 under 102(b) have been fully considered and are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly discovered prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 15 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION 15 MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CFR 1.136(a).
`
`
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`
`
`
`
`the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 16 of 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/123,801
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2419
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`examiner should be directed to Ryan C. Kavleski whose telephone number is 571-270-
`
`
`
`
`
`3619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:30am -4:00pm.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`supervisor, Hassan Kizou can be reached on 571-272-3088. The fax phone number for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`
`
`
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`
`
`
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`Ryan Kavleski
`/R. C. K./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2419
`
`/Hassan Kizou/
`
`
`
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
`
`Orckit Exhibit 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Orckit Corp.
`IPR2023-00554, Page 17 of 17
`
`