Ex Parte RaghuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 6, 201713540334 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2017) 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. 13/540,334 07/02/2012 Jagannath N. Raghu A826 9523 36378 7590 VMWARE, INC. DARRYL SMITH 3401 Hillview Ave. PALO ALTO, CA 94304 EXAMINER RUBIN, BLAKE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/08/2017 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): ipteam @ vmware. com ipadmin@vmware.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAGANNATH N. RAGHU1 Appeal 2016-005443 Application 13/540,334 Technology Center 2400 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON FENICK, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—27. App. Br. 4.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant lists VMWARE, INC. as constituting the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective details: The Final Action mailed February 12, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Corrected Appeal Brief filed September 23, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 4, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed May 4, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2016-005443 Application 13/540,334 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant describes the present invention as “a multiple-cloud- computing-facility aggregation that provides multi-cloud aggregation and that includes a cloud-connector server and cloud-connector nodes that cooperate to provide services that are distributed across multiple clouds. These services include the transfer of virtual-machine containers, or workloads, between two different clouds and remote management interfaces.” Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed claims: 1. A multiple cloud-computing-facility aggregation comprising: multiple, operationally distinct cloud-computing facilities; a cloud-connector server that provides an electronic cloud- aggregation management interface and that is installed within one of the multiple, operationally distinct cloud-computing facilities; and multiple cloud-connector nodes, a cloud-connector node installed in a virtual data center management server, cloud director, or management system within each cloud-computing facility of the multiple cloud-computing-facility aggregation, each cloud-connector node providing an electronic interface through which the cloud-connector server accesses services provided by the cloud-connector node and that each accesses a cloud-management interface within the cloud-computing facility in which the cloud-connector node is installed through which the cloud-connector node accesses local cloud-management services on behalf of the cloud-connector server. 2 Appeal 2016-005443 Application 13/540,334 Claims 1—27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Martin (US 2012/0072910 Al; published Mar. 22, 2012).3 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). CONTENTIONS Appellant asserts that the anticipation rejection is improper for multiple reasons. App. Br. 12—25. For example, Appellant argues that Martin is directed to only a single cloud-computing facility—not an aggregation of multiple, operationally distinct cloud-computing facilities. Id. at 14—15 (citing Martin 134; FIG. 1, elements 114 and 116). Appellant also argues that what the Examiner maps to the claimed ‘“multiple cloud connector nodes’” are, instead, customer-launched virtual machines or a GUI interface of a virtual data center. Id. at 15—16. The Examiner confirms that the claimed “multiple, operationally distinct cloud-computing facilities” are being interpreted as corresponding to the virtual data centers of Martin’s single cloud. Ans. 9—10. The Examiner explains that the recitation of “cloud computing facilities” is broad enough to read on “a plurality of cloud computing components.” Ans. 9. 3 The heading of the rejection states that claims 1—4 are rejected (Ans. 2; Final Act. 2), but the body of the rejection (e.g., Final Act. 2—9), as well as the Response to Arguments Section (id. at 9—11), indicates that all of claims 1—27 are rejected. See also App. Br. 4 (wherein Appellant acknowledges that all of claims 1—27 stand rejected). 3 Appeal 2016-005443 Application 13/540,334 ISSUE Has the Examiner established that it is reasonable to interpret either the recited “multiple cloud-computing-facility aggregation” or the “operationally distinct cloud-computing facilities” as reading on components of a single cloud? PRINCIPLES OF LAW Appellant’s disclosure may be used to determine the proper meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979—80 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). “[Interpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in original). ANALYSIS Appellant’s Specification only uses the term “cloud-computing facility” to refer to an entire computing cloud—not to a subcomponent of a cloud or an element within a cloud. Likewise, Appellant’s Specification only uses the term “multiple cloud-computing-facility aggregation” to refer an interconnected assembly of plural distinct clouds—not to a collection of a single cloud’s subcomponents. See, e.g., Spec. H 1, 5, 41, 44. The Examiner has not taken the position that Martin’s individual virtual data centers or other components of Martin may be interpreted as each constituting individual clouds. As such, the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence that such subcomponents, themselves, reasonably may be 4 Appeal 2016-005443 Application 13/540,334 interpreted as constituting individual clouds. Thus we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown how Martin discloses the claimed “multiple, operationally distinct cloud-computing facilities.” For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim or any of the other claims, all of which similarly recite an aggregation of multiple, operationally distinct cloud computing facilities. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation