SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2021

2020003976 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2021)

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.
15/875,044 01/19/2018 Sahul Hameed Abdul Kader JAILANI 10060.000400 9470
149898 7590 09/09/2021
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
09/09/2021 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 2020-003976
Application 15/875,044
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 which constitute all of the claims
pending. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Jan. 19, 2018 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Nov. 1, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Mar. 11, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Apr. 22, 2020
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed May 5, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Super Micro Computer, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003976
Application 15/875,044
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
computer network including a server computer with communication ports
wired to switch ports of two separate network switches. Spec. 2:3–7. The
network switches aggregate switch ports into a single logical port channel
based on the contents of the aggregation control packets it receives from the
server computer. Id.
Figure 3, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed
subject matter:

Figure 3 above illustrates link connections between server computer
(160-1) and network switches (180-1, 1802) in a computer network. At
server computer (160-1), network interface card (NIC) ports NIC 01 and
NIC 02 are members of the same Link Aggregation Control Protocol
(LACP) port channel aggregation. Id. at 7:9–19.
Appeal 2020-003976
Application 15/875,044
3
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A computer network comprising:
a server computer having a first communication port and
a second communication port;
a first network switch having a first switch port that is
adapted to receive a first network traffic from the first
communication port of the server computer by way of a first
wired connection between the first switch port of the first
network switch and the first communication port of the server
computer; and
a second network switch having a first switch port that is
adapted to receive a second network traffic from the second
communication port of the server computer by way of a second
wired connection between the first switch port of the second
network switch and the second communication port of the server
computer,
wherein the first network switch is adapted to extract link
aggregation data from the first network traffic received at the first
switch port of the first network switch, and to add the first switch
port of the first network switch as a member of a first port
channel aggregation that includes the first switch port of the
second network switch and that has a same aggregation
information as indicated in the link aggregation data extracted
from the first network traffic.
Appeal Br. 16.
Appeal 2020-003976
Application 15/875,044
4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3
Name Reference Date
Sivasankar US 2014/0133486 A1 May 15, 2014
Ditya US 2014/0189094 A1 July 3, 2014
Ernstrom US 2014/0369186 A1 Dec. 18, 2014
Emmadi US 2016/0234091 A1 Aug. 11, 2016

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Sivasankar and Emmadi. Final
Act. 7–11.
The Examiner rejects claims 4–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Sivasankar, Emmadi, and
Ernstrom. Id. at 13–20.
The Examiner rejects claims 9–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Sivasankar and Ditya. Id. at
20–39.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4–15 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–8.4

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appeal 2020-003976
Application 15/875,044
5
A. Obviousness Rejection of claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues the Examiner’s mapping of Sivasankar’s switch 102
to the server computer recited in claim 1 is inconsistent with both the
specification and Sivasankar. Appeal Br. 4–6. Appellant further argues a
“network switch” and a “server computer” are different network devices and
perform different functions. Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that because Sivasankar’s switch and the claimed
server, although different devices, perform similar functions, they are
functionally equivalent. Ans. 37. Furthermore, the Examiner combines
Sivasankar’s Host 122 with Switch 102 in the Answer for teaching or
suggesting the recited “server computer.” Id. at 38.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Sivasankar’s switch at
least teaches the recited server, because Sivasankar’s switch performs the
equivalent function of the recited server. Id.5
Appellant further argues that Emmadi’s flow table does not teach how
switch ports are aggregated. Appeal Br. 8. In particular, Appellant argues
the Examiner’s rejection does not show adding a first switch port of a first
network switch to a port aggregation data received by the first switch port of
a second switch based on link aggregation data received by the first switch
port. Appeal Br. 8–9.

5 Where the claimed subject matter is no more than “the simple substitution
of one known element for another or the mere application of a known
technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement,” and, the
combination does no more than yield predictable results, the claim is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 401 (2007).
Appeal 2020-003976
Application 15/875,044
6
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because we find
Emmadi’s disclosure of ports P3 and P4 on switch 1 and ports P3 and P4 on
switch 3, as shown in Figure 8, teaches or at least suggests the disputed
limitation of extracting link aggregation data. See Emmadi, Fig. 8, ¶¶ 84–
85. 88–89, Final Act. 9–11, Ans. 38–40.
Accordingly, it is our view that the Examiner's proffered combination
of the respective cited features of Sivasankar and Emmadi would have
realized a predictable result--and thus it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Sivasankar’s network switches and switch
ports with Emmadi’s flow table adjustments to link aggregation groups with
certain destination ports. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
401 (2007) (“[A] combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.”). “[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S.
273, 282 (1976)).
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1 and grouped claims 2 and 3. We
also sustain the Examiner’s separate obviousness rejection of claims 4–8
because Appellant does not present substantive arguments regarding these
claims.
Appeal 2020-003976
Application 15/875,044
7
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–20 over the
combination of Sivasankar and Ditya, Appellant presents separate
arguments. Appeal Br. 9–15.
As to independent claim 9, rejected under a separate obviousness
rejection over the teachings and suggestions of Sivasankar and Ditya (Final
Act. 20), Appellant argues Ditya provides no disclosure as to how to
configure a MLAG (multi-chassis link aggregation group) in a network
switch. Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner finds Ditya’s peer switch identifying the links in a
LAG-based on system identifier and a key assigned to each link teaches or at
least suggests the disputed limitation “based on a partner aggregation key
and a partner system identifier.” Final Act. 22, citing Ditya ¶ 62.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Ditya’s
aggregation process beginning when the aggregatable links are grouped into
one or more LAGs based on a system identifier and a key assigned to each
link based on its characteristics at least suggests the disputed limitation
“wherein the partner aggregation key and the partner system identifier
corresponds to the multi-chassis link aggregation.” Final Act. 32( citing
Ditya ¶ 62).
Therefore, on this record, and based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and so we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 9 and grouped claims 14–16.
Appellant separately argues dependent claims 10–13 and 17–20, all of
which recite a similar variation of claim terms that require an action “in
response to detecting”: “adding the first switch port of the first network
switch to the multi-chassis link aggregation in response to detecting that the
Appeal 2020-003976
Application 15/875,044
8
first switch port of the first network switch is not a member of the multi-
chassis link aggregation” (claim 10, p. 17)(emphasis added); “creating the
multi-chassis link aggregation . . . in response to detecting that there is no
port channel aggregation . . .” (claim 11, p. 18)(emphasis added), “creating,
in the first network switch, the multi-chassis link aggregation in response to
detecting that there is no port channel aggregation in the first and second
network switches with a same partner aggregation key and partner system
identifier as those indicated in the extracted control packet” (claim 13, p.
18)(emphasis added)., “creating, in the first network switch, the multi-
chassis link aggregation with a same port channel number as another multi-
chassis link aggregation in the second network switch in response to
detecting that the other multi-chassis link aggregation in the second network
switch has a same partner aggregation key and partner system identifier as
those indicated in the extracted control packet” (claims 13 and 20)(emphasis
added).
Appellant argues Sivasankar does not disclose the basis and
particulars on how the ports are added to the MLAG 400. Appeal Br. 11–15.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Although the Examiner
cites to Sivasankar, Fig. 4, for teaching this “in response to detecting”
limitation that is common in each of these claims 10–13 and 17–20 (Final
Act. 23–29), this citation does not indicate that a link aggregation is created
in response to a detection of a certain condition or feature. See Sivasankar
Fig. 4.
Because Appellant shows at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 10–13 and 17–20,
Appeal 2020-003976
Application 15/875,044
9
we do not reach Appellant’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 10–13 and 17–20.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1–9 and 14–16.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 10–13 and 17–20.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3 103 Sivasankar, Emmadi 1–3
4–8 103 Sivasankar, Emmadi, Ernstrom 4–8
9–20 103 Sivasankar, Ditya 9, 14–16 10–13, 17–20
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 14–16
10–13,
17–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1(iv). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED IN PART