VMWARE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2021

2020000839 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 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.
14/316,507 06/26/2014 Intesar MOHAMMED B928.07 6546
152569 7590 06/28/2021
Patterson + Sheridan, LLP - VMware
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
CHACKO, JOE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2021 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 INTESAR MOHAMMED, RAKESH SINHA,
NIKUNJ NEMANI, ASSAF BERG, and VISHWAS NAGARAJA
Appeal 2020-000839
Application 14/316,507
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–20. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed June 26, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed December 31, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed May
28, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 13, 2019
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed November 12, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as VMware, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000839
Application 14/316,507
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a cloud computing abstraction layer for
integrating mobile platforms. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with
labels added and a disputed claim limitation emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A method of processing commands for a management
application that manages a virtualized computing system
comprising a plurality of physical host computers executing one
or more virtual machines (VMs), comprising:
[(i)] determining that a communications service account
associated with a communications service corresponds to an
authorized user account associated with the management
application;
[(ii)] receiving a first message from the communications
service account via the communications service, the first
message comprising a first command for managing the
virtualized computing system, the first command formatted
according to a first syntax corresponding to the communications
service, and not executable by the management application;
[(iii)] parsing the first message to extract the first
command;
[(iv)] determining that the first command is a valid
command;
[(v)] determining a first format of the first command;
[(vi)] translating the first command from the first format
to a second command in a second format that is executable by
the management application; and
[(vii)] transmitting the second command in the second
format to the management application, causing the management
application to execute the second command.
Appeal 2020-000839
Application 14/316,507
3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Gruttadauria US 6,971,090 B1 Nov. 29, 2005
Shah US 2012/0054280 A1 Mar. 1, 2012
Mehta US 2015/0089039 A1 Mar. 26, 2015
REJECTION3
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Mehta, Shah, and
Gruttadauria. Final Act. 4–11.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
OPINION
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.

3 The Examiner withdraws the obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 15.
Ans. 10; see Final Act. 4, 7–8, 10.
Appeal 2020-000839
Application 14/316,507
4
Independent Claims 1, 10, and 19
The Examiner finds Mehta’s system and method for providing
administration command progress status in a cloud platform environment
teaches or suggest a method as recited by the preamble of claim 1 together
with a first portion claim limitation (ii). Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies
on Shah for teaching claim limitation (i) and on Gruttadauria for the latter
portion of claim limitation (ii) and for claim limitations (iii) through (vii),
including disputed claim limitation (v). Id. at 5–6. In particular, the
Examiner finds the disputed step of determining a first format of the first
command is taught or suggested by Gruttadauria’s filtering step 302 (id.
at 6) wherein “data or information is presented in a particular protocol and is
compared with, or applied to, a particular CIM/XML filter [that makes] a
determination . . . regarding whether or not such received data is valid
CIM/XML data” (Gruttadauria, 10:20–30).
Appellant argues Gruttadauria is deficient because:
Gruttadauria does not teach or suggest extracting a command,
determining the command is valid, and then determining the
format of the command. Notably, in Gruttadauria, the format
of the command, CIM/XML, is already known at the start of the
process when received from the web server (step 301). The
process in Gruttadauria expects valid CIM/XML data in order to
generate the WMI data. Gruttadauria does not teach extracting
data from the web server and the determining the format of
commands present in the data.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant further contends the Examiner errs in finding use of
Gruttadauria’s CIM/XML filter implies determining the presence of a
CIM/XML command, arguing, in Gruttadauria, “the data format is expected
to be CIM/XML. Indeed, the CIM/XML filter is predefined to search for
CIM/XML commands, not commands in any other format. If the commands
Appeal 2020-000839
Application 14/316,507
5
are not CIM/XML, they are deemed invalid. There is [no] teaching or
suggestion that the format of invalid commands is determined.” Id. at 9.
The Examiner responds:
Appellant incorrectly argues that the format of the data or
information received at the server is already known. . . . If
Appellant’s assertion was true, then there would be no need to
include a CIM/XML filter and to determine whether the received
data is valid CIM/XML data. However, Gruttadaria [sic.] teaches
that data or information is presented in a particular protocol and
is compared with, or applied to, a particular CIM/XML filter and
a determination is made regarding whether or not such received
data is valid CIM/XML data.
Ans. 11.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
During examination, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). During examination, when claims can be readily
amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language
explored, and clarification imposed. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed.
Cir. 1989). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the
applicant because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to
obtain more precise claim coverage. Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
at 1364.
In interpreting claim 1, Appellant directs attention to paragraph 50 of
the Specification as describing disputed limitation (v). Thereat we are
Appeal 2020-000839
Application 14/316,507
6
unable to identify any implementation details for performing the disputed
format determination of limitation (v) much less any requirement the step be
distinct or separate from or performed in a particular order with respect to
the step of determining that the first command is a valid command as recited
by limitation (iv). Furthermore, Appellant does not explain why claim 1
otherwise requires the steps not be performed by a process which necessarily
results in making both determinations of limitations (iv) and (v). Instead, in
the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, in the instant case we find
a process that determines a subordinate condition also teaches or suggests
determining a known necessary threshold condition required to satisfy the
subordinate condition.
As argued by Appellant, Gruttadauria’s CIM/XML filter functions,
such that “[i]f the commands are not CIM/XML, they are deemed invalid.”
Appeal Br. 9. Therefore, logically, commands deemed valid are determined
to be of a CIM/XML format, thereby teaching or suggesting the disputed
“determining a first format of the first command” under a broad, but
reasonable, interpretation of limitation (v), as explained above.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[t]he process in
Gruttadauria expects valid CIM/XML data in order to generate the WMI
data.” Id. at 8. Even if a particular file format is expected, Gruttadauria’s
CIM/XML filter ensures that any command determined to be valid
necessarily is based on two factors, whether it is a valid CIM/XML and,
therefore, also whether it is a valid CIM/XML format. Furthermore,
Appellant fails to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that,
contrary to Appellant’s assertion that Gruttadauria expects data to be in an
CIM/XML format, “[i]f Appellant’s assertion was true, then there would be
Appeal 2020-000839
Application 14/316,507
7
no need to include a CIM/XML filter and to determine whether the received
data is valid CIM/XML data.” Ans. 11.
We further are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument, “Gruttadauria
does not teach or suggest extracting a command, determining the command
is valid, and then determining the format of the command” (Appeal Br.
8; Reply Br. 2) because the argued temporal relationship of the disputed
steps is not recited by claim, such that Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate in scope with claim 1. In particular, there is no requirement
the argued steps of parsing the first message to extract the first command
(limitation (iii)) and determining that the first command is a valid command
(limitation (iv)) be performed “and then” the step of determining a first
format of the first command (limitation (v)). This is because, inter alia,
“[u]nless the steps of a method [claim] actually recite an order, the steps are
not ordinarily construed to require one.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v.
Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Altiris, Inc.
v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding
reversible error to interpret method claims as requiring a specific order even
though the patent's specification disclosed only a single embodiment).
For the reasons discussed above, we disagree the Examiner errs in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Mehta, Shah, and Gruttadauria or in rejecting
independent claims 10 and 19, which are argued on the same basis as
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9. For the same reasons, we also sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2–5, 8, 9, 11–14, 17, 18, and 20, which are
argued on the basis of their respective independent base claims. Id. at 9.
Appeal 2020-000839
Application 14/316,507
8
Dependent Claims 7 and 16
Claim 7 recites:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising accessing the
authorized user account to determine whether the
communications service account has permission to issue at least
one type of command included in the first command.
The Examiner finds Mehta’s identity management service 166,
configuration management component, and account management module,
which provide account management capabilities, including user
identification, and access teach or suggest the limitations of dependent
claim 7. Final Act. 8; Ans. 12–13 (citing Mehta ¶¶ 74–75). According to
the Examiner, Mehta teaches that “the user identification is managed within
an identity store and [is] used to initiate API or modules (commands) that
can be used access user account specific data which is substantially similar
to the recited claim limitation.” Ans. 13.
Appellant argues “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion of accessing a
user account to determine if the service has permission to issue the type of
command, as recited in Appellant’s claims.” Appeal Br. 10. According to
Appellant, “the cited portion of Mehta generally describes accessing
account-specific data” and “that users can be managed by a platform and can
access a cloud account manager through an administration interface,” but
fails to teach the argued limitation. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Mehta discloses cloud platform administration service (CPAS) 160,
including identify management service 166, cloud account manager 170, and
Account Management module 174, which “provides the ability to manage
accounts for a CPAS domain.” Mehta ¶ 74. Appellant fails to explain why
Appeal 2020-000839
Application 14/316,507
9
the Examiner errs in finding the account management capabilities disclosed
by Mehta teach or at least suggest use of user identity or other account
information to permit or deny system access including to issue a command
as taught by Gruttadauria. Thus, Appellant’s argument improperly attacks
the Mehta reference individually when the rejection is based on the
combination of Mehta and Gruttadauria. “Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981)).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection
of dependent claim 7, together with dependent claim 16 which is argued on
the same basis. See Appeal Br. 10.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Mehta,
Shah, and Gruttadauria
Appeal 2020-000839
Application 14/316,507
10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–14,
16–20
103 Mehta, Shah,
Gruttadauria
1–5, 7–14,
16–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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