Citrix Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2021

2020002435 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
15/602,715 05/23/2017 Jonathan Davies ID1286US (96021) 7107
149589 7590 09/15/2021
ADDG - CITRIX
MICHAEL W. TAYLOR
1135 East State Road 434, Suite 3001
Winter Springs, FL 32708
EXAMINER
SUN, CHARLIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2021 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):
jwoodsonOA@allendyer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN DAVIES
____________

Appeal 2020-002435
Application 15/602,715
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 18–20. The
Examiner indicates claims 3, 5–9, 12, 14–17, and 21–23 contain allowable
subject matter. See Final Act. 3. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 Citrix
Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002435
Application 15/602,715

2
The present invention relates generally to a computing server that
includes a hardware platform with hardware resources allocated as
virtualized resources by a hypervisor platform. The hypervisor platform
includes a snapshot function to save the state of a virtual machine. See Spec.
Abstr.
Claim 10, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
representative:
10. A method for operating a computing server
comprising a hardware platform comprising hardware
resources, with at least a portion of the hardware resources to be
allocated as virtualized resources, the method comprising:
providing a hypervisor platform based on
execution of code instructions by the hardware platform;
providing at least one virtual machine operating as
an independent guest computing device, with at least a portion
of the virtualized resources being allocated by the hypervisor
platform to the at least one virtual machine;
providing a snapshot function within the
hypervisor
platform to save a state of the at least one virtual machine;
monitoring activity of the at least one virtual
machine; and
activating the snapshot function based on the
monitored activity of the at least one virtual machine exceeding
at least one activity threshold metric.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:2
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Pawar (US
2015/0212893 A1, July 30, 2015) and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Spec.

2 The Examiner withdraws the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35
U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 19. See Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-002435
Application 15/602,715

3
¶¶ 2–4) (hereinafter AAPA). Final Act. 7–10.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that neither AAPA nor Pawar “teach[es] or
suggest[s] activating the snapshot function based on a monitored activity of
the at least one virtual machine exceeding at least one activity threshold
metric.” Appeal Br. 14.
In response, the Examiner finds that the cited combination teaches the
argued limitation because “Pawar teaches triggering [a] snapshot based on a
predetermined amount of time, as well as when an event (i.e. activity)
occurs” (Ans. 5) and “AAPA teaches a monitoring activity of a virtual
machine [0002]-[0003] and there may be changes (i.e. activity) in a virtual
machine between time-based snapshots [0004].” We agree with the
Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here are limited to the
following points of emphasis.
Specifically, Pawar discloses that “[s]napshot operations may run
according to a schedule, . . . based on certain events, etc. A schedule may be
based on the passage of a pre-determined amount of time. . . . Snapshot
operations may also be event-based and may be triggered by certain events.”
Pawar ¶ 346. In other words, Pawar teaches triggering a snapshot operation
after a certain number of hours have past. We find that Pawar’s activation of
Appeal 2020-002435
Application 15/602,715

4
a snapshot operation occurring “after a particular time interval,” is consistent
with triggering a snapshot after a certain time threshold is exceeded. Id.
Thus, the claimed activating the snapshot function based on the monitored
activity . . . exceeding at least one activity threshold metric reads on the
aforementioned teachings in Pawar.
Additionally, AAPA discloses that “[t]he hypervisor platform is able
to save the state of the virtual machine at a point in time” and “[a]utomated
snapshots are time-based and are a way of preserving the history of a virtual
machine.” Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Thus, AAPA teaches monitoring the activity of a
virtual machine. As such, we agree with the Examiner that the combined
teachings of Pawar and AAPA teach or suggest activating the snapshot
function based on the monitored activity of the at least one virtual machine
exceeding at least one activity threshold metric, as set forth in representative
claim 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pawar in view of AAPA,
likewise with the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 13, and 18–20, which are
not argued separately with particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, and 18–20 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Appeal 2020-002435
Application 15/602,715

5
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 10,
11, 13, 18–
20
103 Pawar, AAPA 1, 2, 4, 10,
11, 13, 18–20

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED