Ex Parte Raghu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2017

13539992 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2017)

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.
13/539,992 07/02/2012 Jagannath N. Raghu A803 2898
36378 7590
VMWARE, INC.
DARRYL SMITH
3401 Hillview Ave.
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
05/26/2017 EXAMINER
NAOREEN, NAZIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2017 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. RAGHU, JOHN KILROY,
and GUY HUS SUS SIAN
Appeal 2016-004725
Application 13/539,9921
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
INTRODUCTION
Appellants request rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
(“Board”) Decision mailed February 1, 2017 (“Decision”). We have
reviewed and considered all the arguments made in the Request. We grant
the request only to the extent that Appellants’ arguments in the Request were
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is VMWARE, Inc. (App.
Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-004725
Application 13/539,992
considered. The Request is denied with respect to making any changes in
the Decision.
ANALYSIS
A request for rehearing must state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. 37
C.F.R § 41.52(a)(1).2 The error which Appellants contend occurred in the
decision was: “the Board appears to be adopting three different and mutually
contradictory rejections of claim 1.” Request 33. However, Appellants fail
to clearly identify any points misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in
the Decision.
Appellants contend the Board “combines portions of the Examiner’s
first and third rejections with a new reading of the phrase ‘cloud-connector
server user interface is displayed on a remote computer’ onto ‘Brand’s web
portal providing web-based interface on the device.’” Request 34. To the
extent the Decision contains new arguments which support the rejection, the
alleged new arguments were in addition to and in support of the Board
relying on and adopting the Examiner’s findings, reasoning and conclusions.
Decision 3 (“we agree with the Examiner... We adopt as our own the
2 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(4) provides: “New arguments that the Board’s
decision contains an undesignated new ground of rejection are permitted.”
In the Request, Appellants do not contend the Decision contains an
undesignated new ground of rejection. The Decision clearly does not
contain an undesignated new ground of rejection. Instead, the Decision
analyzes and affirms the rejections made by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action in light of the arguments made by Appellants by bolstering the
Examiner’s findings with additional findings.
2
Appeal 2016-004725
Application 13/539,992
findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken
and in the Examiner’s Answer”).
With regard to the alleged new argument, it was made in responding
to Appellants’ argument that the cited combination of references failed to
teach or suggest “a cloud-connector server that provides an electronic cloud-
connector server interface through which a cloud-connector-server user
interface is displayed on a remote computer and cloud-connector-server-
provided distributed services are accessed from a remote computer” and “the
cloud connector server requests services provided by remote cloud-
connector nodes,” and “cloud-connector nodes, each installed in a different
cloud-computing facility that each provides 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,” as
recited in claim 1. Decision 3^4. As clearly expressed in the Decision, the
Board relied on the detailed findings and citations provided by the Examiner
in the Answer and Final Office Action. We are not persuaded it was error
for the Board to cite to the same citations made by the Examiner in the
Brand reference in order to show additional support for the rejection.
To the extent that Appellants simply reiterate the same arguments (see
Request 36-41) made in the Appeal Brief regarding the claimed “cloud-
connector server,” “cloud-connector-server user interface... on a remote
computer,” “cloud-connector-server-provided distributed services,” “and
cloud-connector codes” (see App. Br. 21—24), which the Board found
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection (see Decision 3—6), we
emphasize that a request for rehearing “must state with particularity the
points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board”
3
Appeal 2016-004725
Application 13/539,992
and “must specifically recite ‘the points of law or fact which appellant feels
were overlooked or misapprehended by the Board.” Ex parte Quist, 95
USPQ2d 1140, 1141 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (quoting MPEP
§ 1214.03). Here, Appellants have not specifically identified points of law
or fact overlooked or misapprehended by the Board in its Decision.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Decision. Thus, we
discern no reason to change the Decision.
DECISION
Accordingly, we have granted Appellants’ Request to the extent that
we have reconsidered the original Decision but have DENIED it with respect
to making any changes to the Decision.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REHEARING DENIED
4