VMWARE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 13, 2021

2020005713 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 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.
15/017,677 02/08/2016 RISHI SARAF C597 1062
152606 7590 12/13/2021
Olympic Patent Works PLLC
4979 Admiral Street
Gig Harbor, WA 98332
EXAMINER
STRANGE, AARON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
MPEP
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2021 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 RISHI SARAF, VISHAL JAIN, and AGILA GOVINDARAJU
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, 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 1–6 and 14–21.2 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. 1.
2 Claims 7–13 were objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but were also indicated as being allowable if rewritten in independent
form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims. This objection is not before us.
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “an automated-application-release-
management controller that provides parameter-value exchange between
different tasks within an application-release-management pipeline.”
Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
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 infrastructure-management-and-administration
subsystem;
a workflow-execution engine;
an automated-application-deployment subsystem; and
an automated-application-release-management subsystem
that executes application-release-management pipelines that
each comprises one or more stages, each having one or more
tasks including one or more tasks that, when executed, each
receives, as one or more input parameter values, parameter
values output by one or more previously executed tasks.
Appeal Br. 53 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Anderson et al. US 8,677,315 B1 Mar. 18, 2014
Watters et al. US 2013/0174117 A1 July 4, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–3 of co-pending Application
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
3
No. 14/958,988 and claims 1–3 of Application No. 15/075,216, in view of
Anderson and Watters.3 See Non-Final Act. 3–5.
Claims 1–6 and 14–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Anderson and Watters. See Non-Final Act. 5–15.
ANALYSIS
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
light of Appellant’s arguments in Appellant’s Appeal Brief that the
Examiner has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions and
concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as
explained below.
The Examiner finds the combination of Anderson and Watters teaches
or suggests all the elements of independent claim 1. See Final Act. 5–7.
More specifically, the Examiner finds Anderson’s continuous deployment
system (“CDS”) that manages and tracks releases of software code teaches
or suggests “[a] workflow-based [management system] incorporated within
a [facility] having multiple servers, data storage devices, and one or more
internal networks,” and further comprising “an infrastructure-management-
and-administration subsystem,” “a workflow-execution engine,” “an
automated-application-deployment subsystem,” and “an automated-
application-release-management subsystem that executes application-
release-management pipelines that each comprises one or more stages, each
having one or more tasks,” as recited in claim 1. See id. at 5–6 (citing
Anderson 2:42–56, 3:57–67, 5:10–54, 8:39–40, Figs. 1, 2). While the

3 Application No. 15/075,216 issued as U.S. Pat. No. 10,942,790. Therefore,
the double-patenting rejection is not provisional.
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
4
Examiner concedes Anderson does not specifically disclose that its
deployment system is incorporated within a cloud-computing facility, the
Examiner further finds Watters discloses a system incorporated with a
cloud-computing facility where applications are built and deployed. See
Final Act. 6 (citing Watters ¶¶ 31–32, 87–94). Further, while the Examiner
also concedes Anderson does not specifically disclose that its pipeline tasks
include “one or more tasks that, when executed, each receives, as one or
more input parameter values, parameter values output by one or more
previously executed tasks,” as recited in claim 1, the Examiner further finds
Watters’s files output from one build manager used as input to another build
manager teaches or suggests the aforementioned element of claim 1. See
Final Act. 6 (citing Watters ¶ 43).
As further found by the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art
in the relevant field would have found it advantageous to modify Anderson’s
CDS to include the aforementioned features disclosed in Watters since “it
would have allowed cloud applications to be remotely build and deployed
using a management system in a cloud computing facility,” and it further
would have “allowed large applications to be divided into parts, separately
built, using the output from earlier executed build tasks as input to later
executed tasks which combine the separately built parts into a completed
application.” Final Act. 6. Therefore, as found by the Examiner:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
incorporate the management system into a cloud-computing
facility to permit remote execution of the management system
and to permit tasks of the application-release-management
pipelines to receive, as one or more input parameter values,
parameter values output by one or more previously executed task
to permit large applications to be built in pieces and combined
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
5
after each piece is built, thereby reducing the overall time
required to build a particular application.
Final Act. 7.
Appellant argues “[t]he Examiner has failed to show a teaching or
suggestion of even a single element of claim 1,” and “the Examiner has
failed to provide reasons or rational argument sufficient to justify combining
the cited references.” Appeal Br. 50. For reasons discussed below, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Appellant contends the combination of Anderson and Watters fails to
teach or suggest “[a] workflow-based cloud-management system
incorporated within a cloud-computing facility having multiple servers, data-
storage devices, and one or more internal networks,” as recited in claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 30–33, 43–45; see also Reply Br. 4–8. More specifically,
Appellant argues Anderson “teaches nothing at all about cloud computing
and cloud-management systems.” Appeal Br. 31. Appellant further argues
Watters fails to describe its system “as a cloud-computing facility.” Appeal
Br. 44.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Notwithstanding
whether the preamble should be given any patentable weight (see Ans. 4),
we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument attacks the references
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references (see
Ans. 5). In particular, Appellant’s argument regarding Anderson is not
persuasive because the Examiner relied upon Watters rather than Anderson
for teaching the “cloud” and “cloud-computing” portions of the preamble of
claim 1. Further, Appellant’s argument regarding Watters is also not
persuasive because, as the Examiner correctly found, Watters discloses a
system 200 for continuous integration for building cloud appliances, where
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
6
Watters’s system 200 teaches the claimed “cloud-management system
incorporated within a cloud-computing facility” recited in the preamble of
claim 1. See Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 5.
Appellant further argues the combination of Anderson and Watters
also fails to teach or suggest “an infrastructure-management-and-
administration subsystem,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 33–34; see
also Reply Br. 8–11. More specifically, Appellant argues Anderson’s CDS
manager does not teach the claimed “infrastructure-management-and-
administration subsystem” because the aforementioned limitation “is
extremely well explained and [well-illustrated] in the current application.”
See Appeal Br. 33. Additionally, Appellant argues that “the recited
infrastructure-management-and-administration subsystem provides
management and administration tools to managers and administrators for
managing and administering computational resources within a cloud-
computing facility,” and Anderson’s CDS manager “does not, and cannot
possibly, manage and administer, or provide tools for management
administration of, computational resources within a cloud-computing
facility.” See Appeal Br. 33–34.
This argument is not persuasive either. We agree with the Examiner
that neither claim 1, nor Appellant’s Specification, defines “infrastructure-
management-and-administration subsystem” in a way that distinguishes the
aforementioned limitation from Anderson’s CDS manager. See Ans. 5–6.
Although Appellant identifies an exemplary embodiment of the claimed
invention that describes the aforementioned limitation, we do not import
features of the disclosed embodiment where the features themselves are not
part of the claims. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d
870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
7
be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is
important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the
claim.”).
Appellant additionally argues the combination of Anderson and
Watters also fails to teach or suggest “a workflow-execution engine,” as
recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 35–36; see also Reply Br. 11–15. More
specifically, Appellant argues paragraph 54 of Appellant’s Specification
“explains what is meant by the phrase ‘workflow-execution engine,’”
Anderson does not teach or suggest a workflow corresponding to the
definition of a workflow included in Appellant’s Specification, and nothing
in Anderson describes or even mentions a workflow-execution engine. See
Appeal Br. 36.
We are not persuaded by this argument either. We agree with the
Examiner that Anderson discloses that, when an application is deployed to a
CDS stage, an approval workflow is used to test a revision, where “the
approval workflow includes the set of steps used to verify that a revision is
approved,” and where “the approval workflow can be run whenever a new
revision shows up in a stage.” See Ans. 6 (citing Anderson 5:28–54).
Anderson further discloses the approval workflow “is applied automatically
to the environment revision during its deployment to the CDS stage or
during the deployment of packages in the environment revision.” Anderson
5:46–49 (emphasis added). Because Anderson teaches that the CDS (or
more specifically, a software subroutine of the CDS) automatically executes
approval workflows, we agree with the Examiner that Anderson teaches the
claimed “workflow-execution engine.” See Ans. 6. We further agree with
the Examiner that neither claim 1, nor Appellant’s Specification, defines
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
8
“workflow-execution engine” in a way that distinguishes the aforementioned
limitation from Anderson’s CDS. See Ans. 6–7.
Appellant further argues the combination of Anderson and Watters
also fails to teach or suggest “an automated-application-deployment
subsystem,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 37–38; see also Reply
Br. 15–16. More specifically, Appellant argues “[t]he workflow-based
cloud-management system includes ‘the automated-application-deployment
subsystem’ as a component, but now the Examiner is attempting to read [the
aforementioned component] onto an operation carried out by what the
Examiner previously . . . asserted corresponds to the workflow-based cloud-
management system.” See Appeal Br. 37. Appellant further characterized
the Examiner’s findings as “logically inconsistent.”
Because we do not agree with Appellant’s characterization of the
Examiner’s position as “logically inconsistent,” we are not persuaded of
Examiner error by Appellant’s argument. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions for the reasons indicated by the
Examiner. See Ans. 7.
Appellant additionally argues the combination of Anderson and
Watters also fails to teach or suggest “an automated-application-release-
management subsystem that executes application-release-management
pipelines that each comprises one or more stages, each having one or more
tasks including one or more tasks that, when executed, each receives, as one
or more input parameter values, parameter values output by one or more
previously executed tasks,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 38–41, 45–
48; see also Reply Br. 16. More specifically, Appellant argues “the phrase
‘application-release-management pipeline’ refers to a sequence of linked
stages, each stage comprising a sequence of workflow-implemented tasks
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
9
. . . with the execution of the stages controlled by an application-release-
management controller operating in conjunction with a workflow-execution
engine,” as described in Appellant’s Specification. See Appeal Br. 38–40.
As argued by Appellant, neither Anderson nor Watters disclose the
aforementioned “application-release-management pipeline.” See Appeal
Br. 40–41, 45–49.
This argument is not persuasive either. We agree with the Examiner
that neither claim 1, nor Appellant’s Specification, defines “application-
release-management pipelines” in a way that distinguishes the
aforementioned limitation from Anderson’s pipeline interface model. See
Ans. 8 (citing Anderson 5:33–50, 8:30–44). We also agree with the
Examiner that Anderson teaches or suggests the claimed “application
release-management pipelines,” as Anderson’s pipeline interface represents
the path that source code takes, where the pipeline interface includes one or
more CDS stages (e.g., an application stage, testing stages, and a production
stage), where each stage includes a set of steps used to verify a revision is
approved. See Final Act. 6 (citing Anderson 5:33–50, 8:30–44); see also
Ans. 8. We further agree with the Examiner that Watters teaches the
claimed “one or more tasks that, when executed, each receives, as one or
more input parameter values, parameter values output by one or more
previously executed tasks,” as Watters discloses artifacts (e.g., files) used by
one build manager that are subsequently used by another of the build
managers. See Final Act. 6 (citing Watters ¶ 43).
Appellant further argues the Examiner has failed to sufficiently show
a motivation to combine Anderson and Watters. See Appeal Br. 48–49. We
are not persuaded by this argument. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the
Examiner articulated a rationale that a person of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
10
would have been motivated to modify Anderson’s disclosure to apply
Anderson’s CDS to a cloud appliance as disclosed in Watters and further to
permit tasks of the stages of the pipeline interface to receive parameter
values (e.g., files) used by previously executed tasks. See Final Act. 6–7.
We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments (see Appeal
Br. 30–50), but we are not persuaded of Examiner’s error for reasons similar
to the reasons discussed above. Thus, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner’s finding that the combination of Anderson and Watters renders
obvious independent claim 1 is in error. No separate arguments are
presented for either the other independent claims or the dependent claims.
See Appeal Br. 50–51. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Anderson and Watters renders obvious
claims 2–6 and 14–21. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–6
and 14–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection
We have also reviewed the Examiner’s non-statutory double-patenting
rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments in Appellant’s Appeal Brief that
the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s arguments regarding the double-
patenting rejection are similar to its arguments regarding the obviousness
rejection, arguing that “the combination of Anderson and Watters fails to
teach, disclose, mention, or suggest even a single element of independent
claim 1 and fails to teach, disclose, mention, or suggest a workflow-based
cloud-management system incorporated within a cloud-computing facility.”
Appeal Br. 51. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions for the
reasons disclosed above regarding the obvious rejection, and we concur with
the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner regarding the double-
patenting rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–3 on
Appeal 2020-005713
Application 15/017,677
11
the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–3 of co-pending Application No. 14/958,988 and claims 1–3 of
Application No. 15/075,216, in view of Anderson and Watters.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 14–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 on the ground
of non-statutory double-patenting.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 14–21 103 Anderson, Watters 1–6, 14–21
1–3 Non-statutory
Double Patenting
1–3
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 14–21
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