VMWARE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2021

2020002318 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 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.
15/063,515 03/08/2016 RAJESH KHAZANCHI C421.01 5787
152606 7590 09/09/2021
Olympic Patent Works PLLC
4979 Admiral Street
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
EXAMINER
BOURZIK, BRAHIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAJESH KHAZANCHI, SERVESH SINGH,
RISHI SARAF, AGILA GOVINDARAJU,
RAKESH SINHA, VISHAL JAIN, and
SHYAM SUNDAR RAO MANKALA

___________

Appeal 2020-002318
Application 15/063,515
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, ERIC B. CHEN, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-002318
Application 15/063,515

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an integrated cloud-management facility
that incorporates an automated-application-deployment-facility integrator.
(Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A workflow-based cloud-management system
incorporated within a cloud-computing facility having multiple
servers, data-storage devices, and one or more internal
networks, the workflow-based cloud-management system
comprising:
an automated-application-release-management
subsystem;
an infrastructure-management-and-administration
subsystem;
an automated-application-deployment integrator that
includes
an application programming interface,
a service-provider interface,
entry point-translation components, and

1 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 VM
Ware, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2020-002318
Application 15/063,515

3
entry point-implementation components; and
one or more automated-application-deployment
subsystems that interface to the service-provider interface of the
automated-application-deployment integrator.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Jamkhedkar et al. US 2007/0118654 A1 May 24, 2007
Santhi et al. US 2015/0188927 A1 July 2, 2015
Scheiner et al. US 2016/0239280 A1 Aug. 18, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14–16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 as being unpatentable over Scheiner and Santhi.
Claims 5, 8–10, 13, and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
being unpatentable over Scheiner, Santhi, and Jamkhedkar.

OPINION
§ 101 Rejection
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 7) that
independent claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiner found that “[t]he claimed ‘workflow-based cloud-
management system’ fails to define any structure or hardware element, [and]
thus . . . it is not patentable under 35 USC 101 for software per se.” (Non-
Final Act. 3.) Moreover, the Examiner found that “the ‘servers,’ ‘data-
Appeal 2020-002318
Application 15/063,515

4
storage device’ and ‘networks’ are not structural features of the ‘cloud-
management system,’ nor are they even considered positively defined
features.” (Id.) We do not agree.
The preamble of independent claim 1 recites “[a] workflow-based
cloud-management system . . . having multiple servers, data-storage devices,
and one or more internal networks (emphasis added). Moreover, claim 1
recites multiple “subsystem[s].” One relevant plain meaning for “system” is
“[a]ny collection of component elements that work together to perform a
task” and includes one example of “a hardware system consisting of a
microprocessor, its allied chips and circuitry, input and output devices, and
peripheral devices.” MICROSOFT® COMPUTER DICTIONARY 508 (5th ed.
2002).
Appellant’s Specification disclose the following:
Computer systems include general-purpose computer
systems, such as personal computers (“PCs”), various types of
servers and workstations, and higher-end mainframe computers,
but may also include a plethora of various types of special-
purpose computing devices, including data-storage systems,
communications routers, network nodes, tablet computers, and
mobile telephones.
(Spec. ¶ 34.)
The computer system 400 is often considered to include
three fundamental layers: (1) a hardware layer or level 402; (2)
an operating-system layer or level 404; and (3) an application-
program layer or level 406. The hardware layer 402 includes one
or more processors 408, system memory 410, various different
types of input-output (“I/O”) devices 410 and 412, and mass-
storage devices 414.
(Id. ¶ 39.) In view of Appellant’s Specification, one of ordinary skill would
recognize that the claimed “system” and “subsystem” as computer hardware
Appeal 2020-002318
Application 15/063,515

5
systems having installed software. As such, independent claim 1 is not
directed to software per se, but rather to a system comprising various
hardware components having installed software.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that
The elements of claim 1, an automated-application-
release-management subsystem, an infrastructure-management-
and-administration subsystem, and an automated-application
deployment integrator, are described in great detail in the
specification of the current application. As with all modem
computational systems, these components include both physical
electromechanical devices as well as large ordered sequences of
computer instructions that are stored in memory devices and that,
when executed by processors of the servers and the cloud-
computing facility, control the processors and other system
components to carry out a variety of tasks discussed, in detail, in
the specification of the current application.
(Appeal Br. 7.)
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that independent claim 1 is
not directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2–11 depend from independent claim 1. We
sustain the rejection of claims 2–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same
reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.

§ 103 Rejection—Scheiner and Santhi
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 13–16; see
also Reply Br. 28–29) that the combination of Scheiner and Santhi would
not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation “an automated-application-deployment integrator.”
Appeal 2020-002318
Application 15/063,515

6
The Examiner found that deployment automation engine 205 of
Scheiner corresponds to the limitation “automated-application-deployment
integrator.” (Non-Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 38.) In particular, the
Examiner found that “deployment system [of Scheiner] is [able] to integrate
such single deployment engine into the deployment system” and the
“limitation does not requires such number of at least two or more
deployment facility/entities.” (Ans. 38.) We do not agree.
Independent claim 1 recites “an automated-application-deployment
integrator” (emphasis added). One relevant plain meaning for “integration”
is “[i]n computing, the combining of different activities, programs, or
hardware components into a functional unit.” MICROSOFT® COMPUTER
DICTIONARY 277 (5th ed. 2002). With respect to the term “automated-
application-deployment integrator,” Appellant’s Specification discloses the
following:
In Figure 24A, the final common API is represented by the
entrypoints contained in the horizontal bar 2402 at the top of the
figure. The APIs for each of the four automated-application-
deployment facilities to be integrated by the integrator, in the
example of Figures 23-26, are each represented by similar
horizontal bars 2404-2407
(Spec. ¶ 80.)
Figure 25 summarizes the design of the automated-
application-deployment-facility integrator. The automated-
application-deployment-facility integrator 2502 includes the
common API 2504 and a service-provider interface (“SPI”)
2506 which represents the calls made by the integrator 2502 to
the APIs of the four different automated-application-
deployment facilities.
(Spec. ¶ 84.)
Appeal 2020-002318
Application 15/063,515

7
Figure 26 shows the workflow-based cloud-management
facility, previously shown in Figures 21A-B, using the above-
described automated-application-deployment-facility integrator.
. . . The automated-application-deployment-facility integrator
provides the common API 2606 to both the automated-
application-release-management facility 1116 and to the
infrastructure-management-and-administration facility 1114 as
well as to the external computational entity 2110. However, to
implement the functionality behind the common automated-
application-deployment-facility API 2602, the automated-
application-deployment-facility integrator 2602 includes
translation and implementation components . . . and calls the
entrypoints of the API of at least one automated-application-
deployment facility. This allows a manager or administrator to
incorporate any one of the automated-application-deployment
facilities 1112, 2112, and 2114 into the workflow-based cloud-
computing facility and cloud-computing environment as well as
to access broader functionality represented by the common API
2606.
(Spec. ¶ 85.)
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, we interpret “integrator” as a component that combines
different activities, programs, or hardware into a functional unit, for
example, combining the functionalities of automated-application-
deployment facilities 1112, 2112, and 2114.
Scheiner relates to “software deployment in computing systems.”
(¶ 1.) Figure 2 of Scheiner illustrates simplified block diagram 200
“including an example implementation of a deployment automation engine
205 (e.g., included in a deployment automation system 105) to perform an
automated deployment of a software release.” (¶ 25.) Moreover, Scheiner
explains that “deployment automation engine 205 can include at least one
data processor 232, one or more memory elements 234, and functionality
Appeal 2020-002318
Application 15/063,515

8
embodied in one or more components embodied in hardware- and/or
software-based logic” and “deployment automation engine 205 can include a
mapping engine 236, deployment plan generator 238, and deployment
manager 242, among potentially other components.” (Id.)
Although the Examined cited to deployment automation engine 205 of
Scheiner, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a
finding that deployment automation engine 205 of Scheiner functions as an
“integrator,” as claimed. In particular, while Figure 2 of Scheiner illustrates
that deployment automation engine 205 includes data processor 232,
memory elements 234, mapping engine 236, deployment plan generator 238,
and deployment manager 242, the Examiner has provided insufficient
evidence to support a finding that such deployment automation engine 205
combines such activities, programs, or hardware as a functional unit. In
addition, the Examiner’s application of Santhi does not cure the above noted
deficiencies of Scheiner.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of Appellant’s arguments, as follows:
[T]he Examiner asserts that Scheiner teaches “an
automated-application-deployment integrator” in paragraph
[0025] of Scheiner. As with the above-discussed assertions,
other than quoting the paragraph following a quote of claim
language from claim 1 of the current application, the Examiner
provides no explanations, discussion, rationale, or reason for
citing the paragraph.
(Appeal Br. 13.)
In paragraph [0025], Scheiner discusses a single
deployment automation engine within a single deployment
automation system. This paragraph does not discuss any two or
more entities that are integrated together as an aggregate entity
with a single interface. This paragraph is unrelated to
integration of any kind.
Appeal 2020-002318
Application 15/063,515

9
(Id. at 16; see also Reply Br. 28–29.)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2–4, 6, 7, and 11 depend from claim 1. We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2–4, 6, 7, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Independent claims 12 and 20 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims
12 and 20, as well as dependent claims 14–16, for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1.

§ 103 Rejection—Scheiner, Santhi, and Jamkhedkar
Claims 5, 8–10, 13, and 17–19 depend from independent claims 1 and
12. The Examiner cited to Jamkhedkar for teaching the additional features
of claims 5, 8–10, 13, and 17–19. (Non-Final Act. 17–24.) However, the
Examiner’s application of Jamkhedkar does not cure the above noted
deficiencies of Scheiner and Santhi.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.

Appeal 2020-002318
Application 15/063,515

10
DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–11 101 Eligibility 1–11
1–4, 6, 7,
11, 12, 14–
16, 20
103 Scheiner, Santhi 1–4, 6, 7,
11, 12, 14–
16, 20
5, 8–10, 13,
17–19
103 Scheiner, Santhi,
Jamkhedkar
5, 8–10, 13,
17–19
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED