VMWARE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 23, 2021

2020004271 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 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.
15/410,798 01/20/2017 AMARNATH PALAVALLI C598 8928
152606 7590 11/23/2021
Olympic Patent Works PLLC
4979 Admiral Street
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
EXAMINER
DENG, ANNA CHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2021 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 AMARNATH PALAVALLI and VISHAL JAIN
____________________

Appeal 2020-004271
Application 15/410,7981
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection
of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a method and system for an automated
application release management subsystem to coordinate continuous
development and release of cloud-computing applications. The application
release management process is specified by application release management

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant states that the real party in interest ix VMWARE, INC.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004271
Application 15/410,798

2
pipelines, each pipeline comprising one or more stages, each stage
comprising one or more tasks. The methods and systems employ
configuration files to specify configuration of the execution environment for
application release management pipelines, stages, and tasks, and apply
policies to configuration files to further specify execution environments.
Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An automated-application-release-management
subsystem within a cloud-computing facility having multiple
servers, data-storage devices, and one or more internal
networks, the automated-application-release-management
subsystem comprising:
a dashboard user interface;
an automated-application-release-management controller;
an interface to a workflow-execution engine within the
cloud-computing facility;
an artifact-storage-and-management subsystem; and
a policy module, accessed by the automated-application-
release-management controller, to apply policies to an
application-release-management-pipeline configuration
prior to configuration of an execution environment for the
application-release-management pipeline.
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.).

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Dennis US 6,466,932 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
Rendahl US 2013/0097651 A1 Apr. 18, 2013
Watters US 2013/0174117 A1 July 4, 2013
Martinez US 2014/0278623 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Balestrazzi US 2017/0141946 A1 May 18, 2017

Appeal 2020-004271
Application 15/410,798

3
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Martinez and Watters.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez, Watters, and Balestrazzi.
Claims 5, 8, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Martinez, Watters, Balestrazzi, and Rendahl.
Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Martinez, Watters, Balestrazzi, Rendahl, and Dennis.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Nov. 27, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May
11, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 4, 2020) for
their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Martinez and Watters teach or suggest an
interface to a workflow-execution engine within the cloud computing
facility?
2. Does the combination of Martinez and Watters teach or suggest an
automated application release management controller with a meaning
consistent with the Specification?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 19
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “an interface to a
workflow-execution engine within the cloud-computing facility.”
Appellant’s Specification states that “[t]he workflow-execution engine and
development environment 1110 provides an integrated development
Appeal 2020-004271
Application 15/410,798

4
environment for constructing, validating, testing, and executing graphically
expressed workflows.” Spec. ¶ 54. Workflows are disclosed as “high-level
programs with many built-in functions, scripting tools, and development
tools and graphical interfaces,” and “provide an underlying foundation for
the infrastructure-management-and-administration facility 1114, the
application-development facility 1112, and the automated-application-
release-management facility 1116.” Id. “The client application that runs on a
remote computer and interfaces to the client interface 1220 provides a
powerful graphical user interface that allows a client to develop and store
workflows for subsequent execution by the workflow engine.” Spec. ¶ 55.
“The user interface also allows clients to initiate workflow execution and
provides a variety of tools for validating and debugging workflows.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Martinez teaches the claimed interface to a
workflow execution engine at Figure 13 and paragraph 129 of Martinez.
Non-Final Act. 4. Martinez Figure 13 depicts an embodiment of a software
application store and marketplace interaction structure, including “filesystem
services and workflow services, interfacing with marketplace services, such
as with software application store workflow connectors.” Martinez ¶ 129.
Martinez does not explicitly define what a “workflow” is. Martinez does
state that “each computing workflow can be separated into a set of distinct
workloads, each workload having requirements such as input, storage,
processing, output, and the like.” Martinez ¶ 106. “Method 700 receives a
computing workflow to be performed in the cloud-computing environment;
and then identifies a computer workload to perform the computing
workflow.” Martinez ¶ 104.
Appeal 2020-004271
Application 15/410,798

5
On this record, we cannot agree with the Examiner that the
“workflows” of Martinez correspond to the “workflows” disclosed and
claimed in the invention under appeal. We further agree with Appellant’s
argument that the interface contained in Martinez’s software application
store does not correspond to the workflow-execution-engine claimed in the
invention under appeal. Appeal Br. 23.
Independent claim 1 further recites, in pertinent part, “an automated-
application-release-management controller” (hereinafter “AARMC”).
Appellant’s Specification discloses that the AARMC “sequentially initiates
execution of various workflows that together implement a release pipeline
and serves as an intermediary between the dashboard user interface 1802 and
the workflow-execution engine 1826.” Spec. ¶ 70. The Examiner finds that
Martinez teaches such a controller at paragraph 6. The Examiner
characterized the claim element as merely “a piece of software that provides
functionalities of the resource management service that Martinez teaches in
[0006].” Ans. 21.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. As described supra,
Martinez does not teach the concept of its “workflows” as “high-level
programs with many built-in functions, scripting tools, and development
tools and graphical interfaces,” and thus we find that any controller
disclosed in paragraph 6 of Martinez does not function to initiate execution
of various such workflows that together implement a release pipeline, as
Appellant discloses.
We are constrained, on this record, to determine that the combination
of Martinez and Watters does not teach or suggest all the limitations of the
Appeal 2020-004271
Application 15/410,798

6
invention under appeal. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 19.
Claims 3–9 and 12–18
We do not sustain, supra, the rejection of independent claims 1 and
10, from which these claims variously depend. The Examiner does not find
that Balestrazzi, Rendall, or Dennis supplies teachings that remedies the
deficiencies we have identified in the combination of Martinez and Watters.
See Non-Final Act. 7–16.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 18 over Martinez, Watters, and Balestrazzi, for the
reasons given with respect to independent claims 1 and 10, supra.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5, 8, 14,
and 17 over Martinez, Watters, Balestrazzi, and Rendahl, for the same
reasons given with respect to claims 1 and 10.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 6 and 15
over Martinez, Watters, Balestrazzi, Rendahl, and Dennis, for the same
reasons given with respect to claims 1 and 10.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Martinez and Watters does not teach or suggest
an interface to a workflow-execution engine within the cloud computing
facility.
2. The combination of Martinez and Watters does not teach or suggest
an automated application release management controller with a meaning
consistent with the Specification.
Appeal 2020-004271
Application 15/410,798

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 10, 11,
19
103 Martinez, Watters 1, 2, 10, 11,
19
3, 4, 7, 9, 12,
13, 16, 18
103 Martinez, Watters,
Balestrazzi
3, 4, 7, 9, 12,
13, 16, 18
5, 8, 14, 17 103 Martinez, Watters,
Balestrazzi,
Rendahl
5, 8, 14, 17
6, 15 103 Martinez, Watters,
Balestrazzi,
Rendahl, Dennis
6, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–19

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19 is reversed.

REVERSED