Ex Parte Fildebrandt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201613611391 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/611,391 09/12/2012 ULF FILDEBRANDT 22135-0142001/2012P00137U 9454 32864 7590 12/22/2016 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER KHAN, AFTAB N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2016 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ULF FILDEBRANDT, FRANK OLIVAR HOFFMANN, ANDRE HILDEBRANDT and OLIVER KIESELBACH Appeal 2016-000182 Application 13/611,391 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOVAN and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to managing virtual machines represented as nodes. Specification, paragraph 1. Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)'. 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: Appeal 2016-000182 Application 13/611,391 receiving a message from a particular tenant of a plurality of tenants; based at least in part on the message, identifying a subset of nodes of a plurality of nodes, each node of the subset of nodes providing a unique functionality to process the message; based at least in part on the message, identifying a particular version, of one or more versions, of one or more nodes of the subset of nodes, the particular version of the one or more versions supported by the particular tenant; identifying, from the subset of nodes, a group of nodes associated with the particular version', identifying, from the group of nodes, a particular node that is mapped to the particular tenant', and providing the message to the particular node that is associated with the particular version and is mapped to the particular tenant. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Astete (US Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0290506 Al; published October 31, 2013). Final Rejection 5—18. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 18, 2015), the Answer (mailed July 21, 2015) and the Final Rejection (mailed September 18, 2014) for the 2 Appeal 2016-000182 Application 13/611,391 respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where noted. Appellants contend Astete merely discusses a general approach to multi-tenant virtual machine infrastructure, including general virtual machine configurations that are employed for projects.” Appeal Brief 12. Appellants argue the Examiner’s reading and interpretation of Astete is incorrect with respect to the claimed subject matter because Astete fails to identify a version of one or more nodes and identify the group of nodes associated with the particular version. Appeal Brief 11. Appellants also contend, “Astete merely discusses currently running virtual machine configurations with the listing of configurations having no association with a selected unique functionality or a particular versioning of the nodes (which are supported by the tenant) that are predicated upon the unique functionality.” Appeal Brief 11 (reference omitted). Appellants argue the Examiner’s reading and interpretation of Astete is also incorrect with respect to identifying a particular node mapped to the particular tenant as required in claim 1. Appeal Brief 11. Appellants conclude that: Astete does not discuss: a) identifying a subset of nodes that provide a unique functionality; b) from that subset of nodes, identifying a further subset of nodes associated with a particular version that is supported by a particular tenant; and c) from that 3 Appeal 2016-000182 Application 13/611,391 further subset of nodes, identifying a particular node that is mapped to the particular tenant. Appeal Brief 11. The Examiner finds, “Tenant is basically an organization with multiple users that are allowed to access the selected node’s services for the respective user(s)” and a “Message is defined as request (see specification at [020]) and can include any representation of data such as text, XML, or binary (see specification at [039] & [046])3'’ Answer 18. The Examiner finds authentication request that contains information such as user name and password for a user of a given tenant or company equates to the claimed message (Astete: [0118]).” Answer 20. The Examiner finds identifying a subset of nodes that provide a unique functionality is taught by Astete because Astete teaches “isolating a specific tenant’s use of storage to a specific subset of storage nodes to meet performance, security, or availability considerations of the tenant according to policies for achieving any number of tenant or user objectives.” Answer 20—21 (citing Astete, paragraphs 76 and 87). The Examiner finds identifying a further subset of nodes associated with a particular version that is supported by a particular tenant is taught by Astete because “Astete teaches a virtual lab labelled Skytap [that] provides access to [a] dashboard that provides an aggregate of various set[s] of virtual machines, projects and libraries for a user A of tenant A (see Fig. 9).” Answer 21. The Examiner finds identifying a particular node that is mapped to the particular tenant is taught by Astete because: Astete teaches a group of virtual machine[s] or nodes that are identified or isolated, from the group of nodes, a particular node that is mapped to the particular tenant (Fig. 11 Virtual data Center, [106], 107], [sic] [110], [128], identifies from the group 4 Appeal 2016-000182 Application 13/611,391 of six virtual machines or nodes a particular node or virtual machine such as ‘CentOS-Database Server 1115’ that is mapped to the particular tenant or company, i.e. Tenant A. Answer 22. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. The claims broadly recite a computer method wherein a non-descriptive tenant can ascertain access to generic nodes in which the nodes provides generic functionality characterized by a nonspecific version.1 Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, as well as, claims 2—20, not argued separately. Appeal Brief 12. DECISION The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—20 is affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 1 During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation