Ex Parte Parthasarathy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

13292922 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/292,922 11/09/2011
69316 7590 09/04/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Srivatsan Parthasarathy
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.
333535.01 3381
EXAMINER
KORSAK, OLEG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRIVATSAN PARTHASARATHY, SCOTT FIELD,
JOSEPH DADZIE, and DAVID KAYS
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal and seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 38-57, all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE and enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b ).
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to provisioning devices based on data
maintained in a network computing system. Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 3 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
3 8. A computing device, comprising:
a memory having processor-executable components
stored thereon;
at least one processor configured to facilitate execution of
the processor-executable components, the processor-executable
components, comprising:
a service component that maintains, in a cloud service, a
set of services that provisioned a first virtual machine on a first
physical computing device in the cloud service;
a platform component that provides resources to facilitate
provisioning a second virtual machine for deployment in the
cloud service with the set of services on a second physical
computing device in the cloud service; and
a storage component that provides storage in the cloud
service for data generated by the second virtual machine,
wherein the first physical computing device and the
second physical computing device differ.
Vasilevsky
REFERENCES
US 2009/0249335 Al Oct. 1, 2009
Rui Zhang and Alan Bivens, Comparing the Use of Bayesian Networks and
Neural Networks in Response Time Modeling for Service-oriented Systems,
SOCP'07, June 26, 2007.
2
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
REJECTIONS
Claims 38--43 and 45-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Vasilevsky. Non-Final Act. 3-7.
Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Vasilevsky and Zhang. Non-Final Act. 7.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner rejects each of
independent claims 38, 46, and 52 as anticipated by Vasilevsky, relying on
the same disclosures in Vasilevsky. See Non-Final Act. 3--4, 6; App. Br. 5-
10. Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 38, 46,
and 52, focusing their arguments instead on the patentability of claim 3 8.
App. Br. 10 ("For the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 38,
claims 46, 52 are not anticipated by Vasilevsky."). Because we agree with at
least one of Appellants' contentions, which is applicable to all independent
claims, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of all claims. However,
because we find Appellants' claimed invention to be obvious in view of the
teachings ofVasilevsky, we reject Appellants' independent claims as obvious
for the reasons that follow.
Description of Appellants 'Invention
The Specification discloses provisioning a plurality of client devices
104 via cloud service 102. Spec. ,r 6. Cloud service 102 includes
infrastructure component 510 that includes one or more computing
devices. Id. ,r 51. Each of client devices 104 can either be provisioned with
an operating system and applications by cloud service 102, or have one or
3
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
more virtual machines (VMs) provisioned in cloud service 102 to give client
devices 104 remote access to the services provided by the VMs. Id. ,r,r 52,
55, 65, Figs. 6, 8. For example, client device 606 can request to either (a) be
provisioned identically as any of devices 61 OA---C, or (b) have one or more
VMs provisioned in cloud service 102 having the functionality of any of
devices 610A---C. Id. ,r 55, Fig. 6. When VMs are provisioned in cloud
service 102 having the functionality of devices 61 OA---C, device 606 can
remotely access the functionality of devices 61 OA---C via the VMs
provisioned in the cloud service. Id.
The Specification does not explicitly disclose the VMs can be
provisioned on first and second devices in cloud service 102, or that first and
second VMs having the same set of services can be provisioned in cloud
service 102. Nonetheless, we agree with Appellants that a person skilled in
the art would understand the Specification to disclose first and second VMs
could have been provisioned on first and second devices in infrastructure
component 510. Reply Br. 3. Moreover, a person skilled in the art would
understand the first and second VMs could have been provisioned with the
same set of services in cloud service 102. For example, a person skilled in
the art would understand that two work colleagues having identically
configured enterprise devices 61 OC could each request provisioning their
enterprise devices 61 OC as VMs in cloud service 102 to allow them to
remotely access the functionality of enterprise devices 61 OC from their
respective personal devices 61 OB via the VMs provisioned in the cloud
service.
4
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
Description of Vasilevsky
V asilevsky "relates to the ... field of virtualized computing
management." Vasilevsky ,r 3. Vasilevsky discloses provisioning multiple
client devices 102 via remote management system 108 (i.e., a cloud service)
with a copy of a workspace 122. Id. ,r,r 9, 15, 16, 23, 50, 67, Fig. 1. Copy of
workspace 122 includes VM 202 and applications 204 that run in VM 202.
Id. ,r,r 85, 100-102, Figs. 1, 2. Management system 108 includes computing
center 114 containing a plurality of computers in one or more data
centers. Id. ,r,r 57, 73. A remote user, such as a corporate administrator, can
access and operate computing center 114 via management console 120. Id.
,r,r 79, 83. This allows the corporate administrator to create, store, and
manage a master workspace image. Id. ,r,r 74, 83, 92. This master
workspace image is then downloaded to a plurality of users on client devices
102 as copies of workspace 122. Id. ,r 92.
Client devices 102 include a Workspace Execution Engine (WEE)
that allows the downloaded copies of workspace 122 to be run, thereby
allowing applications 204 to be run in VMs 202. Id. ,r,r 53, 60. A network
server can also be provided with a WEE. Id. ,r 172. Users of client devices
102 lacking a WEE can access and use the network server to download and
run their copy of workspace 122. Id. Thus, Vasilevsky discloses
maintaining (storing/managing) a set of services (master workspace image)
and providing resources that facilitate provisioning the set of services
(resources to transmit a copy of workspace 122 that includes applications
204) in order to provision a virtual machine (VM 202 in copy of workspace
122) on a physical computing device (network server) in the cloud.
5
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
The Examiner's Rejection of claim 38
Claim 3 8 recites a computing device having a processor configured to
execute processing components, including "a service component that
maintains ... a set of services that provisioned a first virtual machine on a
first physical computing device in the cloud service" and "a platform
component that provides resources to facilitate provisioning a second virtual
machine for deployment in the cloud service with the set of services on a
second physical computing device in the cloud service." App. Br. 14.
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 16, 19, and 172 ofVasilevsky to
meet these limitations. Non-Final Act. 3--4. Although these paragraphs of
Vasilevsky disclose provisioning a VM and applications on a computer
system, such as a network server that is "running in the cloud," they do not
explicitly disclose provisioning the same set of services to first and second
VMs on first and second physical devices in the cloud as required by claim
38. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants' that Vasilevsky does not
anticipate independent claim 38, or independent claims 46 and 52, and we
reverse the Examiner's rejection of all claims for this reason.
However, as explained above, Appellants' Specification also fails to
explicitly disclose provisioning the same set of services to first and second
VMs on first and second physical devices in the cloud. Nonetheless, we
agree with Appellants' contention that a person skilled in the art would
understand from the Specification that first and second VMs having the
same set of services could be provisioned on first and second physical
computing devices in the cloud. See Reply Br. 3; see also, supra (explaining
that two work colleagues having identically configured enterprise devices
61 OC could request provisioning enterprise devices 61 OC as VMs in cloud
6
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
service 102 to allow remote access via their respective personal devices
610B). Accordingly, we reject claims 38, 46, and 52 as obvious in view of
Vasilevsky for the reasons explained below.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 38, 46, and 52 under 35 US. C. § 103 (a)
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b ), we reject claims
38, 46, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Vasilevsky.
Claim 3 8 requires a computing device having a memory storing
processor-executable components, and a processor for executing those
components. Vasilevsky discloses management system 108 includes
computing center 114 having any number of server-class computers in one
or more data centers. Vasilevsky ,r,r 57, 73. Any one or more of
Vasilevsky's server-class computers (hereafter, "the provisioning
computer") contains a memory storing executable components and a
processor for executing those components. Id. ,r,r 201,202, 206-208. For
the same reasons, V asilevsky teaches a device having a memory and
processor as recited in claim 52.
Claim 3 8 further requires the memory's executable components to
include a service component that maintains a set of services in a cloud
service that provisioned a first VM on a first physical computing device in
the cloud service. Vasilevsky teaches the "provisioning computer" in
management system 108 creates, stores, and manages a master workspace
image, and provides a plurality of copies of workspace 122 that include VM
202 and applications 204 to client computing devices having a WEE. Id. ,r,r
11, 15, 74, 85, 92, 97, 100-102, Figs. 1, 2. Vasilevsky further teaches that
copies of workspace 122 can be delivered to a network server having a
7
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
WEE. Id. ,r,r 15, 97, 172. Thus, Vasilevsky teaches a service component on
the "provisioning computer" that maintains (stores) a set of services ( master
workspace image) that provisioned a first virtual machine ( copy of
workspace 122 that includes VM 202) on a first physical computing device
(network server) in the cloud service. For the same reasons, Vasilevsky also
teaches the claim 46 limitation of "maintaining in a cloud service a set of
services that were used to provision a first virtual machine on a first physical
computing device in the cloud service," and the claim 52 limitation of a
processor configured to "maintain a set of services used to provision a first
virtual machine in a cloud service."
Claim 38 further requires the memory's executable components to
include "a platform component that provides resources to facilitate
provisioning a second virtual machine ... with the set of services on a
second physical computing device in the cloud service." As discussed
above, Vasilevsky teaches the "provisioning computer" facilitates
provisioning a virtual machine on a network server. Id. ,r 15 ("providing a
facility for managing a virtualized workspace adapted to operate on a
computer; and embodying the virtualized workspace as a set of virtual disk
images to facilitate transporting the workspace to a second computer.")
( emphasis added); id. ,r 1 72 ("the WEE may run on a network server that
provides remote-desktop access [to] any and all of the workspaces running
on the network server"). Thus, Vasilevsky teaches a platform component
that provides resources (master workspace image embodied as a set of
virtual disk images) to facilitate provisioning a first virtual machine (VM
202 in copy of workspace 122) with a set of services (applications 204 in
8
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
copy of workspace 122) on a first physical computing device (network
server) in the cloud service.
Vasilevsky, however, does not expressly disclose the platform
component provides resources to facilitate provisioning a second virtual
machine on a second physical computing device with the same set of
services used to provision the first virtual machine on the first physical
computing device. Nonetheless, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to do so for the following reason.
Vasilevsky's management system 108 includes computing center 114
that comprises "any number of server-class computers or the like arranged in
one or more data centers." Id. ,r,r 57, 73. The computing center provides a
copy of workspace 122 to a plurality of users of client devices 102. Id. ,r 67.
The copy of workspace 122 includes a VM 202 and applications 204. Id.
,r,r 85, 100-102, Figs. 1, 2. Each copy of workspace 122 is based on a
master workspace image created by a corporate administrator, and therefore
contains the same set of services ( e.g., applications 204). Id. ,r,r 83, 92.
Users whose client devices 102 lack a WEE that is capable of running the
copy of workspace 122 can instead download and run the copy on a network
server. Id. ,r 172. Given the potentially large number of enterprise users
(e.g., employees of a fortune 500 company), and the geographic distribution
of those users ( e.g., worldwide), a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to configure two or more network servers (first and
second physical computing devices) with a WEE to allow multiple users to
simultaneously download and run their copies of workspace 122 on the
network servers. Doing so would have distributed the bandwidth needed to
allow multiple users to simultaneously download and run their copies of
9
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
workspace 122 across the two or more network servers, thereby reducing
network congestion. Thus, V asilevsky teaches or suggests the "provisioning
computer" includes "a platform component that provides resources to
facilitate provisioning a second virtual machine for deployment in the cloud
service with the set of services on a second physical computing device in the
cloud service."
Claim 46 recites limitations similar to the limitations recited in claim
3 8, including:
receiving a request to provision a second virtual machine for
deployment in the cloud service with the set of services on a
second physical computing device in the cloud service;
providing a set of resources in the cloud service to provision the
second virtual machine with the set of services; and
utilizing the set of resources to provision the second virtual
machine with the set of services.
V asilevsky teaches a user requests the network server to download a copy of
workspace 122. Id. ,r 172. To download the copy of workspace 122, the
network server must request it from the "provisioning computer," which
therefore "receiv[es] a request to provision a second virtual machine [i.e.,
VM 202 in the downloaded copy of workspace 122] for deployment in the
cloud service." Thus, for this reason, and for the reasons explained above
regarding the similarly recited limitations of claim 38, Vasilevsky teaches or
suggests these limitations of claim 46.
Claim 52 also recites limitations similar to the limitations recited in
claim 3 8, including:
10
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
dynamically determine a second set of services to provision a
second virtual machine in a same manner as the first virtual
machine for deployment in the cloud service;
provide a set of resources in the cloud service to provision the
second virtual machine with the second set of services; and
utilize the set of resources to provision the second virtual
machine with the second set of services.
Vasilevsky teaches user workspaces 122 can be updated. See id. ,r,r 21, 81,
92. A person skilled in the art would have found it obvious to dynamically
determine the second set of services to provision a second virtual machine
on a second physical computing device in order to capture any updates to the
copy of workspace 122 since the time the first virtual machine was
provisioned on the first computing device. Thus, for this reason, and the
reasons explained above regarding the similarly recited limitations of claim
3 8, Vasilevsky teaches or suggests these limitations of claim 52.
Claim 38 further requires the memory's executable components to
include "a storage component that provides storage in the cloud service for
data generated by the second virtual machine." Vasilevsky teaches client
devices 102 can download the copy of workspace 122 from management
system 108, and upload user data 124 to management system 108. Id. ,r,r 59,
6 8. User data 124 is stored in data repository 118 that may include "any
number of hard drives, tape storage devices, solid-state storage devices, or
the like." Id. ,r 74. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that when the network server downloads the copy of workspace
122 to the network server to provide "remote access" to applications 204
running in VM 202, any user data 124 generated by applications 204 would
11
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
have been uploaded to management system 108 and stored in a storage
component (e.g., a hard disk drive or solid-state memory) of the
"provisioning computer."
Finally, claim 3 8 requires the first and second physical computing
devices to differ. As explained above, Vasilevsky teaches computing center
114 comprises "any number of server-class computers or the like arranged in
one or more data centers," id. ,r 73, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to provision first and second virtual machines
on different first and second physical computing devices in order to
distribute over multiple servers or computing devices the bandwidth needed
to allow multiple users to simultaneously download and run their copies of
workspace 122 on the network servers. Moreover, in addition to teaching
the first and second computing devices could be physically distinct network
servers, V asilevsky teaches the network servers could have different
hardware configurations. See id. ,r 15 (teaching "providing a facility for
managing a virtualized workspace adapted to operate on a computer ...
[ and] transporting the workspace to a second computer independent of the
configuration of the hardware of the second computer.") ( emphasis added).
Thus, Vasilevsky teaches or suggests "wherein the first physical computing
device and the second physical computing device differ." For the same
reasons, V asilevsky teaches or suggests the claim 46 limitation "wherein the
first physical computing device differs from the second physical computing
device," and the claim 52 limitation "wherein the first virtual machine and
the second virtual machine are provisioned on different physical computing
devices in the cloud service."
12
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find claims 38, 46,
and 52 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and
reject claims 38, 46, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Vasilevsky. The fact that we do not also reject the claims that depend from
claims 38, 46, and 52 should not be construed to mean that we consider
those claims to be patentable. Rather, because we are primarily a reviewing
body rather than a place of initial examination, we leave it to the Examiner
to make that determination should further prosecution occur in this case.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 38--43 and 45-57 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Vasilevsky is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vasilevsky and Zhang is reversed.
Pursuant to our authority under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.50(b ), we reject claims
38, 46, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Vasilevsky.
Section 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant
to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." Rather,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION,
Appellants must exercise one of the following two options with respect to
the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the
newly rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims
so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded
to the examiner ....
13
Appeal2017-010035
Application 13/292,922
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record.
REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
14