VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2021

2020002782 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
15/013,066 02/02/2016 Kiril KARAATANASSOV C412 1057
152569 7590 09/21/2021
Patterson + Sheridan, LLP - VMware
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
HENRY, MARIEGEORGES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2021 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 KIRIL KARAATANASSOV and MAYA ILIEVA
Appeal 2020-002782
Application 15/013,066
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 VMware, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002782
Application 15/013,066
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “[s]treaming progress updates and results of
REST [(representational state transfer)] API [(application programming
interface)] operations.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key
disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of performing a representational state
transfer (REST) application programming interface (API)
operation at a server computing system, comprising:
receiving a request of a hypertext transfer protocol
(HTTP) session from a client computing system, the request
requesting performance of the REST API operation and
issuance of progress updates;
sending a first part of a response of the HTTP session to
the client computing system, the first part of the response
acknowledging the request;
sending, while the REST API operation is performed, at
least one additional part of the response to the client computing
system, each additional part of the response having a progress
update for the REST API operation; and
sending, upon completion of the REST API operation, a
final part of the response to the client computing system having
a result of the REST API operation.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Mages US 6,185,306 B1 Feb. 6, 2001
Liverance US 2013/0031539 A1 Jan. 31, 2013
Taine US 2014/0244721 A1 Aug. 28, 2014
Compagna US 2014/0278724 A1 Sep. 18, 2014
Zhao US 2015/0033335 A1 Jan. 29, 2015
Bhogal US 8,959,482 B2 Feb. 17, 2015

Appeal 2020-002782
Application 15/013,066
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as obvious over Compagna and Taine. Final Act. 4–10.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Compagna, Taine, and Liverance. Final Act. 10–12.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Compagna, Taine, Liverance, and Bhogal. Final Act. 12–13.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Compagna, Taine, and Zhao. Final Act. 14–15.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Compagna, Taine, and Mages. Final Act. 15–16.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 over
Compagna and Taine
The Examiner finds Compagna and Taine teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner finds Compagna teaches all
limitations of claim 1 except “sending, while the REST API operation is
performed, at least one additional part of the response to the client
computing system, each additional part of the response having a progress
update for the REST API operation” (claim 1). Final Act. 4–5; see also Ans.
3–4. The Examiner finds Taine teaches “sending, while the REST API
operation is performed, at least one additional part of the response to the
client computing system, each additional part of the response having a
progress update for the REST API operation” (claim 1). Final Act. 5; see
also Ans. 4–5. The Examiner reasons
Appeal 2020-002782
Application 15/013,066
4
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art before the effective date of the claimed invention to
implement Taine’s feature into Compagna’s teachings. One
having ordinary skill in the art [would have been] motivated to
combine them in order to keep informing about [the] state of an
asynchronous operation without waiting for the asynchronous
operation to be completed.
Final Act. 6.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i.
[I]n Compagna, the client is requesting status updates from the
server on a request-by-request basis. The client in Compagna is
not requesting, in a single request of an HTTP session, that the
server issue progress updates for performing a REST API
operation. The server in Compagna does not return more than
one status update for each request.
Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2–3.
ii.
[T]here is no teaching or suggestion in Taine that the server
responds with the status of the asynchronous operation in parts
of a response of an HTTP session. Rather, the server uses
separate HTTP sessions to send status updates to the client, rather
than as parts of a response to the original request of the
asynchronous operation.
Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
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).
We do not see any reversible error in the contested Examiner’s
findings.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), this argument does not show any
reversible error.
Appeal 2020-002782
Application 15/013,066
5
Compagna discloses
The client (e.g., client 102) can establish its own session
with the servers 116, 118. Each session can involve two-way
information exchange between the computer systems 106, 108
and the client 102. For example, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP) session can allow the association of information with
individual users. A session can be [a] stateful session, in which
at least one of the communicating parts (e.g., the servers 116, 118
or the client (e.g., client 102)) stores information about the
session history in order to be able to communicate. Alternatively,
stateless communication during a stateless session includes
independent requests with associated responses.
Compaga ¶ 48 (emphasis added).
Thus, we determine Compagna teaches “receiving a request of a
hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) session from a client computing system”
(claim 1) because Compagna discloses the client establishing a HTTP
session with the server. Compagna ¶ 48.
Compagna further discloses “[t]he BPM [(business process model)]
client may also receive various response status codes on the status of the
validation process in response to the various GET requests during the
polling.” Compagna ¶ 146; see also Compagna, Fig. 17. Because Compagna
permits these status codes to be available, we determine Compaga’s initial
request to the server teaches “the request requesting performance of the
REST API operation and issuance of progress updates” (claim 1). Compagna
¶¶ 48, 146; see also Ans. 3–4. Taine also teaches this limitation, as further
discussed below. Taine ¶ 68; see also Taine, Fig. 3, Ans. 4–5. In addition,
we recognize that Compagna uses polling requests to retrieve the status
codes; however, the claim language does not exclude the use of additional
requests after the initial request in Compagna. See Ans. 4.
Appeal 2020-002782
Application 15/013,066
6
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), this argument also does not
show any reversible error.
Taine discloses
The operation resource 302 is also configured to cause the
server 124 to transmit events that represent the evolution of states
of the asynchronous operation until ultimate success or failure of
the asynchronous operation. As the asynchronous operation
transitions towards completion, the operation resource 302
transmits high-urgency updates/events to the event resource 212,
and the server 124 can transmit a reply that identifies a high-
urgency update to the first client 112 as described above. For
instance, when the request to make a call has been received by
the server 124, the server can cause high-priority updates to be
delivered to the first client 112 in order to indicate that the call is
being made, and that an available device is detected. Other
updates identified by the operation resource 302 can include:
that the operation is starting; that the operation is in progress;
and that the operation has concluded. Such update types may
also comprise additional information about the state of the
operation. In an example, when the update type is that the
operation has concluded, the update type may additionally
comprise information that the operation was, for instance,
successful, or that it failed, and reasons for success or failure of
the operation.
Taine ¶ 68 (emphasis added).
Thus, we determine Taine teaches “sending, while the REST API
operation is performed, at least one additional part of the response to the
client computing system, each additional part of the response having a
progress update for the REST API operation” (claim 1) because Taine
discloses sending updates during an asynchronous operation including an
update that the operation is in progress. Taine ¶ 68; see also Taine, Fig. 3,
Ans. 4–5.
Appeal 2020-002782
Application 15/013,066
7
We also note that Taine’s request to perform an asynchronous
operation also teaches “the request requesting performance of the REST API
operation and issuance of progress updates” (claim 1) because Taine
discloses sending updates during the asynchronous operation including an
update that the operation is in progress. Taine ¶ 68; see also Taine, Fig. 3,
Ans. 4–5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15,
18, and 19, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal
Br. 9.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2, 9, and 16 over Compagna, Taine,
and Liverance
Appellant argues “Liverance does not cure the deficiencies of
Compagna and Taine with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.” Appeal Br. 9; see
also Reply Br. 4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16
for reasons explained above.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3, 10, and 17 over Compagna, Taine,
Liverance, and Bhogal
Appellant argues “Bhogal and Liverance do not cure the deficiencies
of Compagna and Taine with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.” Appeal Br. 10;
see also Reply Br. 4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17
for reasons explained above.

Appeal 2020-002782
Application 15/013,066
8
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6 and 13 over Compagna, Taine, and
Zhao
Appellant argues “Zhao does not cure the deficiencies of Compagna
and Taine with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.” Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply
Br. 4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 13 for
reasons explained above.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7, 14, and 20 over Compagna, Taine,
and Mages
Appellant argues “Mages does not cure the deficiencies of Compagna
and Taine with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply
Br. 4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 14, and 20
for reasons explained above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 5, 8,
11, 12, 15,
18, 19
103 Compagna, Taine 1, 4, 5, 8,
11, 12, 15,
18, 19

2, 9, 16 103 Compagna, Taine,
Liverance
2, 9, 16
3, 10, 17 103 Compagna, Taine,
Liverance, Bhogal
3, 10, 17
Appeal 2020-002782
Application 15/013,066
9
6, 13 103 Compagna, Taine,
Zhao
6, 13
7, 14, 20 103 Compagna, Taine,
Mages
7, 14, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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