First, Patent Owner argues that Swallow does not teach or suggest the limitation in independent claims 1 and 9 reciting that the backup routing path is established prior to a link failure.
We disagree, as on the present record Petitioner’s evidence sufficiently demonstrates that this limitation is taught or suggested by Swallow, namely, that the bypass tunnel (backup routing path) may be established before the communication link failure.
On the present record, therefore, we are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in establishing the unpatentability of claims 2, 10, and 11 of the ’917 patent as obvious over the combination of Swallow, Callon, and Baker.
Petitioner also provides an articulated reason with a rational underpinning that explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the source and destination labels of Teraslinna with the apparatus and method of Swallow.
On the present record, therefore, we are persuaded there is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing in establishing the unpatentability of claims 4 and 14 of the ’917 patent as obvious over the combination of Swallow, Callon, and Teraslinna.