VMWARE, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 23, 20212020004271 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 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. 15/410,798 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation