2019004692 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021)

VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 4, 2021

2019004692 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021)

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. 14/924,374 10/27/2015 Christopher GILLIARD C603 7322 152569 7590 01/04/2021 Patterson + Sheridan, LLP - VMware 24 Greenway Plaza Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 EXAMINER MIAH, RAZU A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2441 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2021 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): ipadmin@vmware.com psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com vmware_admin@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER GILLIARD, JAMES CHI-SHUN TSIAO, KONSTANTIN ANATOLYEVICH BAY, YANG LI, ARAM COMPEAU, and XIANGFANG LI Appeal 2019-004692 Application 14/924,3741 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 This application was filed on October 27, 2015. 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VMware, Inc. Appeal Br. 3 Appeal 2019-004692 Application 14/924,374 2 SPECIFICATION The Specification is directed to a method of processing application data. Spec. ¶ 2. “The method includes receiving a first packet of data from a first packet emitter associated with a first application.” Id. “The method also includes identifying a first emitter ID associated with the first packet emitter.” Id. “The method further includes identifying a first application data processing destination based on the first emitter ID.” Id. CLAIMS Claims 1, 10, and 19 are the pending, independent claims. Claims 1 and 10 are illustrative and are reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for processing application data, comprising: receiving a first packet of data from a first packet emitter associated with a first application providing the application data; identifying a first emitter ID associated with the first packet emitter; identifying a first application data processing destination based on the first emitter ID; transmitting the first packet of data to the first application data processing destination; and processing the first packet of data according to a first rule associated with the first emitter ID and associated with the first application data processing destination, the first rule comprising an indication that the first data processing destination is to process the first packet. 10. A system for processing application data, comprising: a data management server configured to: receive a first packet of data from a first packet emitter associated with a first application providing the application data, Appeal 2019-004692 Application 14/924,374 3 identify a first emitter ID associated with the first packet emitter, identify a first application data processing destination based on the first emitter ID, and transmit the first packet of data to the first application data processing destination; and the first application data processing destination, configured to process the first packet of data according to a first rule associated with the first emitter ID and associated with the first application data processing destination, the first rule comprising an indication that the first data processing destination is to process the first packet. Appeal Br. 11, 13. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Soulie US 2008/0181115 A1 July 31, 2008 De Armas US 2013/0340029 A1 Dec. 19, 2013 REJECTIONS Claims 1–20 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non- statutory obviousness type double patenting over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0118084 (US Serial No. 14/924,368) (“’368 application”), which is now U.S. Patent No. 10,601,669 (“’669 patent”). Final Act. 4. Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of De Armas and Soulie. Final Act. 5. Appeal 2019-004692 Application 14/924,374 4 OPINION A. Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection As discussed above, in the Final Office Action, which issued in June 2018, the Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1–20 for obviousness-type double patenting over the claims of the ’368 application, which subsequently issued as the ’669 patent. Final Act. 4. The claims of the ’368 application were amended subsequent to the issuance of the Final Office Action in this case. See ’368 File History, Dec. 27, 2018 Amendment and Response to Office Action, 1–7. Thus, we will leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the current provisional, obviousness-type double patenting rejection should be converted into a non-provisional rejection based on the issued ’669 patent claims. Ex parte Jerg, 2012 WL 1375142 at *3 (BPAI 2012) (informative) (“Panels have the flexibility to reach or not reach provisional obviousness-type double-patenting rejections.”) (citing Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)). B. Obviousness Rejection over De Armas and Soulie Appellant argues that De Armas and Soulie do not teach or suggest the limitation in claim 10 of “configured to process the first packet of data according to a first rule associated with the first emitter.” Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 1–3. Appellant further argues that De Armas and Soulie do not teach or suggest the corresponding limitation in claims 1 and 19 of “processing the first packet of data according to a first rule associated with the first emitter ID.” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4. Collectively, we refer to these limitations as the processing limitations. The Examiner finds that De Armas teaches or suggests the processing limitations. Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 5–9. Appellant disagrees, arguing that De Appeal 2019-004692 Application 14/924,374 5 Armas at best teaches associating policies based on the content of messages from consumers, not based on an emitter ID. Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2. We agree with the Examiner that De Armas teaches or suggests the processing limitations. First, although De Armas discloses associating policies based on the content of messages from consumers, De Armas also discloses associating policies based on characteristics other than message content (e.g., the consumer’s service provider). De Armas, code (54), ¶ 56. In particular, De Armas discloses a filtering method for associating policies with resources. Id. ¶ 56. De Armas further discloses associating different policies using filters that define conditions for a given policy to be applied. Id. ¶¶ 58, 59. “The condition may include may include a specific value to be found at a specific location in the message [sent by the consumer].” Id. ¶ 59. One specific value is the consumer’s service provider, which is identified in the message’s header, not in its content. Id. ¶¶ 59, 60. De Armas provides an example SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) header that identifies the customer’s service provider. Id. (“lines [3] to [5] identify the service provider to which the policy applies.”). Thus, De Armas discloses filtering based on the consumer’s service provider, which is not part of the message’s content. Final Act. 6–7. Second, the Examiner finds De Armas’s disclosure of filtering based on service providers satisfies the processing limitations, and Appellant provides no persuasive reason why that disclosure does not. Final Act. 6–7; Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 1–3. In particular, Appellant provides no persuasive reason why the identification of the customer’s service provider is not an emitter ID. Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 1–3. The Specification Appeal 2019-004692 Application 14/924,374 6 describes an emitter ID as “uniquely identif[ying] a particular emitter 215 or set of emitters 215.” Spec. ¶ 33. A service provider’s identity uniquely identifies the set of emitters associated with that service provider and, thus, is an emitter ID. Therefore, De Armas discloses filtering based on a rule associated with an emitter ID. Thus, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 and of claims 2, 3, 5–7, 11, 12, 14–16, and 20, not argued separately. Appeal Br. 9. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1–20 Provisional Obviousness-type Double Patenting3 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14– 16, 19, 20 103 De Armas, Soulie 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14– 16, 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14– 16, 19, 20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED 3 As explained above, we do not reach this provisional rejection. Jerg, 2012 WL 1375142 at *3.