VMWARE, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 9, 20212020002318 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation