Ex Parte Garman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2019

13625507 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/625,507 09/24/2012 Matthew S. Garman
35690 7590 04/01/2019
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5924-41800 1071
EXAMINER
ARAQUE JR, GERARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte MATTHEWS. GARMAN, JAMES R. HAMILTON,
WILLIAM T. SHELTON, MICHAEL P. CZAMARA,
TERRANCE DOUGLAS HANOLD, ABHINA V AGRAWAL,
JOHN W. EICHELBERG, and RAJESH VISWANATHAN
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to providing resources to customers
including racks, sub-rack level secure containment units in the racks, and a
provisioning control system. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellant, Amazon Technologies, Inc. is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
1. A system, comprising:
a plurality of system computing devices configured to
implement a plurality of resources of a provider network;
a plurality of racks;
a plurality of sub-rack level secure containment units in
the plurality of racks, wherein the plurality of sub-rack level
secure containment units each enclose a group of one or more
system computing devices of the plurality of system computing
devices, wherein respective groups of system computing devices
enclosed in respective ones of the sub-rack level secure
containment units are physically isolated from other system
computing devices of the plurality of system computing devices,
wherein at least one particular rack of the plurality of racks holds
two or more of the sub-rack level secure containment units; and
a provisioning control system comprising an interface
configured to, for each customer of two or more customers:
receive, from the customer, a request for resources
of the provider network with restricted physical access,
wherein the request specifies conditions for physical
access to the restricted physical access resources;
wherein in response to receiving the customer's request,
the provisioning control system is configured to provision
resources implemented on respective groups of system
computing devices in a set of two or more of the subrack level
secure containment units to the customer; and
monitor, and create a record of, events of physical
access to the respective groups of system computing
devices in the customer's set of subrack level secure
containment units in accordance with the conditions for
physical access to restricted physical access resources
included in the request from the customer,
wherein, for at least one of the racks, the provisioning
control system is configured to provision resources implemented
on groups of system computing devices in different sub-rack
level secure containment units in the rack to different customers.
2
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 19-23, and 26-30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gujarathi
(US 2008/0091701 Al; published Apr. 17, 2008), Cedillo (US 6,364,439
Bl; issued Apr. 2, 2002), and Angelo (US 7,167,987 B2; issued Jan. 23,
2007). Final Act. 11-53.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14--18, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo,
Angelo, and Nishimura (US 2012/0095926 Al; Apr. 19, 2012). Final Act.
53-70.
Claims 7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, Angelo, and
Official Notice. Final Act. 70-73.
ANALYSIS
I. The Combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo Teaches a
Provisioning System with a Restricted Physical Access Option
Claim 1 recites:
a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured
to, for each customer of two or more customers: receive, from
the customer, a request for resources of the provider network
with restricted physical access ... in response to receiving the
customer's request, the provisioning control system is
configured to provision resources implemented on respective
groups of system computing devices in a set of two or more of
the sub-rack level secure containment units to the customer.
2 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
The Examiner finds Gujarathi teaches provisioning, managing racks
and subordinate rack elements 15 for customers, and enforcing policies 14
that control accessibility to computing resources in response to the creation
of a customer's policies, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "a
provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each
customer of two or more customers ... the provisioning control system is
configured to provision resources implemented on respective groups of
system computing devices in a set of two or more of the sub-rack level []
containment units to the customer." Final Act. 12-14 (citing Gujarathi
,r,r 24--27, 31, 33, 34).
The Examiner finds Cedillo teaches leasing storage units or
compartments such that each individual client has a key to only its own
cabinet to protect from theft or vandalism and each rack has units removably
attached to the rack, which the Examiner maps to the limitation:
a provisioning control system comprising an inter/ ace
configured to, for each customer of two or more customers:
receive, from the customer, a request for resources of the
provider network with restricted physical access, ... in response
to receiving the customer's request, the provisioning control
system is configured to provision resources implemented on
respective groups of system computing devices in a set of two or
more of the sub-rack level secure containment units to the
customer.
Final Act. 16-17 ( citing Cedillo 1 :29-2 :26, 2: 61-3: 11 ).
Appellants argue Gujarathi teaches a directory system, but fails to
teach receiving provisioning requests with restricted physical access and
provisioning resources in accordance with the requests. App. Br. 30-32;
Reply Br. 2---6. Appellants argue Cedillo teaches leasing cabinet space and
4
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
providing each client a key to only its own cabinet to protect from theft or
vandalism, but fails to teach a provisioning system that provisions resources
of a provider network implemented on system computing devices of the
provider network included in secure containment units. We disagree with
Appellants.
Gujarathi teaches provisioning, managing racks and subordinate rack
elements 15 (i.e., sub-rack level containment units) for customers, and
enforcing policies 14 (i.e., provisioning control system that provisions
resources) that control accessibility to computing resources in response to
the creation of a customer's policies, which teaches the limitation "a
provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each
customer of two or more customers ... the provisioning control system is
configured to provision resources implemented on respective groups of
system computing devices in a set of two or more of the sub-rack level []
containment units to the customer" recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited
in claims 8, 22, and 27). Final Act. 12-14 (citing Gujarathi ,r,r 24--27, 31,
33, 34).
Cedillo teaches leasing storage units (i.e., a lease indicates receipt
from the customer a request for resources of the provider network) such that
each individual client has a key to only its own cabinet to protect from theft
or vandalism (i.e., sub-rack level secure containment units) and each rack
has units removably attached to the rack, which teaches the limitation
a provisioning control system comprising an inter/ ace
configured to, for each customer of two or more customers:
receive, from the customer, a request for resources of the
provider network with restricted physical access, ... in response
to receiving the customer's request, the provisioning control
system is configured to provision resources implemented on
5
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
respective groups of system computing devices in a set of two or
more of the sub-rack level secure containment units to the
customer; recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited in claims 8,
22, and 27).
Final Act. 16-17 ( citing Cedillo 1 :29-2 :26, 2: 61-3: 11 ).
Appellants separately argue independent claims 8, 22, and 27 with
particularity, but these arguments assert the rejections of those claims should
be withdrawn for at the same reasons as argued regarding independent claim
1. App. Br. 39--41, 43--45. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's finding
that the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo teaches the limitation
discussed in this section.
2. The Combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo Teaches a
Provisioning System that Allows Customers to Specify Conditions for
Physical Access
Claim 1 recites:
a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured
to, for each customer of two or more customers: receive, from
the customer, a request for resources of the provider network ...
wherein the request specifies conditions for physical access to
the restricted physical access resources; wherein in response to
receiving the customer's request, the provisioning control system
is configured . . . monitor, and create a record of, events of
physical access to the respective groups of system computing
devices in the customer's set of sub-rack level secure
containment units in accordance with the conditions for physical
access to restricted physical access resources included in the
request from the customer.
The Examiner finds Gujarathi teaches provisioning, managing racks
and subordinate rack elements 15 for customers, and enforcing policies 14
that control accessibility to computing resources in response to the creation
6
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
of a customer's policies, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "a
provisioning control system comprising an interface configured to, for each
customer of two or more customers." Final Act. 12-14 (citing Gujarathi
,r,r 24--27, 31, 33, 34).
The Examiner finds Cedillo teaches leasing storage units or
compartments such that each individual client has a key to only its own
cabinet to protect from theft or vandalism and each rack has units removably
attached to the rack, which the Examiner maps to the limitation:
a provisioning control system comprising an interface configured
to, for each customer of two or more customers: receive, from
the customer, a request for resources of the provider network ...
in the customer's set of sub-rack level secure containment units.
Final Act. 16-17 (citing Cedillo 1:29-2:26, 2:61-3:11).
The Examiner finds Angelo teaches installing a storage device
requires a person to associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating
a template and storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is accessible
only if the user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully verifying
the user's biometric signal from the sensor, which the Examiner maps to the
limitation:
a provisioning control system comprising an inter/ ace
configured to,for each customer of two or more customers:
receive,from the customer, a request/or resources of the
provider network ... wherein the request specifies conditions
for physical access to the restricted physical access resources;
wherein in response to receiving the customer's request,
the provisioning control system is configured . .. monitor, and
create a record of, events of physical access to the respective
groups of system computing devices in the customer's set of[]
secure containment units in accordance with the conditions for
7
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
physical access to restricted physical access resources included
in the request from the customer.
Final Act. 16-21 (citing Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51---67, 5:16-30).
Appellants argue Gujarathi fails to teach the above limitation because
Gujarathi does not teach a customer can specify conditions for physical
access in a request for resources of a provider network that are to be
provisioned to the customer. App. Br. 35; Reply Br. 6-7. Appellants argue
Cedillo fails to teach the above limitation because Cedillo fails to teach a
provisioning control system. App. Br. 35. Appellants argue Angelo fails to
teach the above limitation because Angelo does not teach a provisioning
control system and a customer specifying a request for resources of a
provider network conditions for physical access. Id. at 35-36; Reply Br. 7-
8. We disagree with Appellants.
Gujarathi teaches provisioning, managing racks and subordinate rack
elements 15 for customers, and enforcing policies 14 that control
accessibility to computing resources in response to the creation of a
customer's policies, which teaches the limitation "a provisioning control
system comprising an interface configured to, for each customer of two or
more customers" recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 8, 22,
and 27). Final Act. 12-14 (citing Gujarathi ,r,r 24--27, 31, 33, 34).
Cedillo teaches leasing storage units or compartments such that each
individual client has a key to only its own cabinet to protect from theft or
vandalism and each rack has units removably attached to the rack, which
teaches the limitation:
a provisioning control system comprising an inter/ ace
configured to,for each customer of two or more customers:
8
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
receive,from the customer, a request/or resources of the
provider network ... in the customer's set of sub-rack level
secure containment units; recited in claim 1 ( and similarly recited
in claims 8, 22, and 27). Final Act. 16-18 (citing Cedillo 1:29-
2:26, 2:61-3:11).
Angelo teaches installing a storage device requires a person to
associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating a template (i.e.,
user request specifying a condition for physical access to restricted physical
access resources) and storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is
accessible only if the user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully
verifying the user's biometric signal from the sensor (i.e., monitor, and
create a record of events of physical access), which teaches the limitation:
a provisioning control system comprising an inter/ ace
configured to,for each customer of two or more customers:
receive,from the customer, a request/or resources of the
provider network ... wherein the request specifies conditions
for physical access to the restricted physical access resources;
wherein in response to receiving the customer's request,
the provisioning control system is configured . .. monitor, and
create a record of, events of physical access to the respective
group of system computing devices in the customer's set of []
secure containment units in accordance with the conditions for
physical access to restricted physical access resources included
in the request from the customer.
Final Act. 16-21 (citing Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51---67, 5:16-30).
Appellants separately argue independent claims 8, 22, and 27 with
particularity, but these arguments assert the rejections of those claims should
be withdrawn for at the same reasons as argued regarding independent claim
1. App. Br. 39--41, 43--45. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's finding
9
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
that the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo teaches the limitation
discussed in this section.
3. The Final Office Action Establishes a Prima Facie Rejection
The Examiner makes numerous findings with respect to the
combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo teaching the limitations in
dispute. See supra§§ 1-2; Final Act. 11-21.
Appellants argue the Office fails to cite any references that teach a
customer being able to request resources with restricted physical access or a
customer being able to specify conditions for physical access to the
restricted physical access resources. App. Br. 36-37. We disagree with
Appellants.
For at least the reasons described above with respect to the
combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and Angelo, we agree with the Examiner
that the combination teaches the limitations in dispute. See supra §§ 1-2.
Appellants separately argue independent claims 8, 22, and 27 with
particularity, but these arguments assert the rejections of those claims should
be withdrawn for at least the same reasons as argued regarding independent
claim 1. App. Br. 39--41, 43--45. Also, Appellants do not argue separately
dependent claims 4--7, 9-13, 15-21, 23-26, and 28-30 with particularity, but
assert the rejections of those claims should be withdrawn for at least the
same reasons as argued regarding independent claims 1, 8, 22, and 27. App.
Br. 28--45. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of: (1)
independent claims 1, 8, 22, and 27; and (2) dependent claims 4--7, 9-13,
15-21, 23-26, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
4. Claim 2
The Examiner finds the combination of Gujarathi, Cedillo, and
Angelo teaches the limitations recited in claim 2. Final Act. 21-25. In
particular, the Examiner finds Angelo teaches installing a storage device
requires a person to associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating
a template and storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is accessible
only if the user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully verifying
the user's biometric signal from the sensor, which the Examiner maps to the
limitation "wherein each of the locks on the two or more [] secure
containment units is coupled to the provisioning control system." Id. (citing
Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51-67, 5:16-30).
Appellants argue Angelo fails to teach any interaction with a
provisioning control system. App. Br. 37-38; Reply Br. 8-9. We disagree
with Appellants.
At the outset, although Appellants copy and paste the entire language
from claim 2, we note Appellants repeat a lot of the arguments regarding
claim 1 and the only new argument pertaining to claim 2 is that Angelo fails
to teach any interaction with a provisioning control system.
Angelo teaches installing a storage device requires a person to
associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating a template and
storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is accessible only if the
user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully verifying the user's
biometric signal from the sensor, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
"wherein each of the locks on the two or more [] secure containment units is
coupled to the provisioning control system." Final Act. 21-25 ( citing
Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51-67, 5:16-30).
11
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5. Claim 3
The Examiner finds Angelo teaches installing a storage device
requires a person to associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating
a template and storing it into the registry 122 such that the drive is accessible
only if the user is authenticated after analyzing, then successfully verifying
the user's biometric signal from the sensor, which the Examiner maps to the
limitation "wherein the conditions for physical access to restricted physical
access resources included in the request are defined by the customer" recited
in claim 3. Final Act. 19-21, 25-26 (citing Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35,
4:51---67, 5: 16-30).
Appellants argue Gujurathi teaches administrators, rather than
customers, manage a user's access to the shares. App. Br. 39; Reply Br. 10.
We disagree with Appellants.
At the outset, Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's finding
pertaining to Angelo. Moreover, Angelo teaches installing a storage device
requires a person to associate themselves with a biometric sensor by creating
a template (i.e., defined by the customer) and storing it into the registry 122
such that the drive is accessible only if the user is authenticated after
analyzing, then successfully verifying the user's biometric signal from the
sensor, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "wherein the conditions
for physical access to restricted physical access resources included in the
request are defined by the customer." Final Act. 19-21, 25-26 ( citing
Angelo, 2:12-29, 4:14--35, 4:51---67, 5:16-30).
12
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6. Claim 14
The Examiner finds Nishimura teaches managing racks, creating an
audit trail when a user is physically accessing a rack, creating a work order,
and requiring an approval to execute a work order, which the Examiner
maps to the limitations "a request for approval by the customer" and "an
approval of the customer in response to the request" recited in claim 14.
Final Act. 63---65 ( citing Nishimura ,r,r 100,217, 264).
Appellants argue Nishimura fails to teach sending requests for
approval to a customer to whom resources are provisioned or receiving an
approval from such a customer. App. Br. 42--43; Reply Br. 10.
Nishimura teaches managing racks, creating an audit trails when a
user is physically accessing a rack, creating a work order, and requiring an
approval to execute a work order, which the Examiner maps to the
limitations "a request for approval by the customer" and "an approval of the
customer in response to the request" recited in claim 14. Final Act. 63---65
(citing Nishimura ,r,r 100,217,264).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not
to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
13
Appeal2017-011024
Application 13/625,507
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
14