Ex Parte Banga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13302123 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/302, 123 11/22/2011 Gaurav Banga
102107 7590 10/04/2016
Brokaw Patent Law, PC
101 Church Street, Suite 50
Los Gatos, CA 95030
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BROM.P203 1045
EXAMINER
TA, TRANGKHANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2137
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
chris@brokawpatentlaw.com
amaloney@brokawpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GAURAV BANGA, IAN PRATT, SIMON CROSBY, VIKRAM
KAPOOR, KIRAN BONDALAP ATI, and V ADIM DMITRIEV
Appeal2015-002890
Application 13/302, 123
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS,
and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20. App. Br. 11. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 12 has been canceled. Claim App'x.
We REVERSE.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Mar. 18, 2014
("App. Br."); Appellant's Reply Brief filed July 8, 2014 ("Reply Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed May 9, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Final Office
Action mailed Nov. 1, 2013 ("Final Act.").
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Bromium, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
3 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal2015-002890
Application 13/302, 123
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a non-transitory computer-readable
storage medium, a client and a method of providing a guest operating system
to a virtual machine. Abstract. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below
with disputed limitations italicized and some formatting added:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
instructions, for providing a guest operating system to a virtual
machine, which when executed by one or more processors cause:
creating a read-only copy of one or more disk volumes, wherein the
one or more disk volumes include a boot volume;
storing a copy of a master boot record (MBR) for the one or more disk
volumes; and
creating a virtual disk, for use by the virtual machine, based on the
read-only copy of the one or more disk volumes and the copy of
the master boot record (MBR),
wherein the virtual disk comprises the guest operating system used by
the virtual machine,
wherein the guest operating system and a host operating system
execute on a single physical machine, and wherein the guest
operating system and the host operating system are
implemented by a single installed copy of an operating system
stored on the single physical machine.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Dittmer US 2010/0235831 Al Sept. 16, 2010
Claims 1-11and13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Dittmer. Final Act. 2-21.
2
Appeal2015-002890
Application 13/302, 123
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue all claims as a group. 4 App. Br. 11-20; Reply Br. 2-
6. Appellants contend Dittmer does not describe "wherein the guest
operating system and the host operating system are implemented by a single
installed copy of an operating system stored on the single physical
machine," as recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 11. Appellants argue the guest
operating system operating on the virtual machine is separate from the
installed copy of the host operating system operating on the host system.
App. Br. 16. Appellants note Dittmer states that "guest OS 116 runs in an
environment that is isolated from the host OS." App. Br. 16 (quoting
Dittmer i-f 116).
The Examiner finds Dittmer describes the virtual hard disk in the
virtual machine contains the complete content of the hard disk of the host
system containing the host operating system. Final Act. 5 (citing Dittmer i-f
116). Dittmer states that "[ t ]he virtual hard disk stores a system image
containing the complete content and structure of a physical hard disk."
Dittmer i-f 116. Based on the cited disclosure the Examiner finds the guest
operating system implemented in the virtual machine is the same as the host
operating system and is implemented by the same installed copy of the host
operating system. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. However, as Appellants point out,
Dittmer discloses that guest operating system 116 is implemented by a
second operating system stored on external storage device 216. App. Br. 14
(citing Dittmer i-fi-1 16-21 and 29). We agree with Appellants that Dittmer
discloses that the guest operating system is installed from the portable
4 We do not reach the merits of Appellants' further arguments in favor of
independent Claim 1 because we find the decided issue to be dispositive.
3
Appeal2015-002890
Application 13/302, 123
storage device because Dittmer discloses that "[t]he portable OS is installed
on a virtual hard disk that is stored on a portable storage device, for example
a USB flash memory drive." Dittmer i-f 29. The Examiner has not shown
that Dittmer describes a copy of the host operating system implemented as
the guest operating system from a single installed copy of the host operating
system. Ans. 4; Final Act. 5. Rather, Dittmer explains that the guest
operating system is isolated from the host operating system and hosts its
own set of applications. Dittmer i-f 116.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that Dittmer describes the host
operating system and the guest operating system are implemented from
different installed copies of operating systems. App. Br. 14--15; see Dittmer
,-r 116.
In view of the foregoing, we find that Dittmer as applied by the
Examiner fails to describe at least one limitation of Claim 1. We, therefore,
decline to sustain the anticipation rejection of Claims 1-11and13-20.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-11 and 13-20 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4