Ex Parte HUANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2019

14538742 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/538,742 11/11/2014
136237 7590
Barta, Jones & Foley, P.C.
(Patent Group - VMware)
2805 Dallas Parkway
Suite 222
Plano, TX 75093
04/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xun Wilson HUANG
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.
Al30.Cl 3920
EXAMINER
SADLER, NATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
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):
uspto@dockettrak.com
docket@bjfip.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XUN WILSON HUANG, RACHIT SIAMW ALLA,
and JAMES M. PHILLIPS 1
Appeal2018---007097
Application 14/538,742
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON PENICK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 31-50, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. App. Br. 4. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants list VMware, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief
filed March 23, 2018 ("App. Br.") 1.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned appeal brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
October 23, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed May 3,
2018 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed July 1, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-007097
Application 14/538,742
THE PRESENT APPLICATION
The present application is directed to the field of virtual computing,
and more specifically to efficiently managing virtual hard disks used in
conjunction with virtual machines (VMs ). Spec. ,r 2. Virtualization allows
multiple virtual machines to run on a single physical server simultaneously.
Id. ,r 3. Like physical machines, virtual machines have storage media such
as virtual hard disks, which are typically used to store the base operating
systems, application programs, and application data. Id. ,r 4. However,
virtual hard disks can be very large, making them difficult and time
consuming to copy when making a copy of the virtual machine. Id. ,r 6.
The Specification explains that it was known that virtual disks can
include redo logs, which capture the differences between a base state of a
virtual hard disk and subsequent modifications made to that hard disk. Id.
,r 8. The invention proposes using these redo logs to dispense with the need
to copy an entire hard disk when cloning a virtual machine. Id. ,r 10. Rather
than copying the underlying virtual hard disk, two redo logs are created,
both of which are linked to the virtual hard disk. Id. The virtual machine
being cloned is linked to one redo log, and a newly created virtual machine
is linked to the other. Id. Thus, multiple virtual machines can be created
from a single virtual machine without requiring the copying of all the
underlying stored data. Id.
Claim 31 illustrates the claims at issue:
31. A method comprising:
determining that a virtual machine (VM) satisfies a set of
requirements, the VM being linked to a base virtual disk;
based on the determining, identifying the VM as a
template VM;
2
Appeal2018-007097
Application 14/538,742
receiving a request to clone the template VM to produce
a second VM;
creating a first redo disk for the template VM;
creating a second redo disk for the second VM without
copying contents of the base virtual disk;
linking the template VM directly to the first redo disk,
and the first redo disk directly to the base virtual disk; and
linking the second VM directly to the second redo disk,
and the second redo disk directly to the base virtual disk.
App. Br. A-1 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 31-32, 34--35, 38-39, 41--42, 45--46, and 48--49 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hirschfeld
(US 2004/0210591 Al; published October 21, 2004) in view of
Chandrasekaran (US 2006/0101189 Al; published May 11, 2006).
Claims 33, 40, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Hirschfeld and Chandrasekaran in view of
Waldspurger (US 7,529,897 Bl; issued May 5, 2009).
Claims 36-37, 43--44, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Hirschfeld and Chandrasekaran in view of
Srivastava (US 7,320,009 Bl; issued January 15, 2008).
THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Hirschfeld teaches
the steps of identifying a VM as a template VM, producing a second VM,
creating a first redo disk for the template VM, creating a second redo disk
for the second VM, linking the template VM directly to the first redo disk
3
Appeal2018-007097
Application 14/538,742
and the first redo disk directly to the base virtual disk, and linking the second
VM directly to the second redo disk. Final Act. 3--4.
In particular, the Examiner relies on Figure 4 of Hirschfeld, which is
reproduced below:
Hirschfeld Figure 4 depicts a block diagram illustrating shared
component files simultaneously used for multiple virtual hard
drives deployed for multiple logical servers.
The Examiner finds that logical servers LS 1, LS2, and LS3 in Figure 4 are
VMs, and that these VMs have redo disks (CO and DO) linked to a virtual
hard disk shown as "Storage 405" in Figure 4. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds that Hirschfeld does not specifically teach a
request to clone a template VM to produce a second VM, but that
Chandrasekaran teaches this limitation. Final Act. 4--5 ( citing
Chandrasekaran). Chandrasekaran teaches "a method for cloning a virtual
machine from a source system to a target system" (Abstract) in order to
create "one or more copies" of the virtual machine (i-f 34 ).
4
Appeal2018-007097
Application 14/538,742
Appellants initially argue that "Hirschfeld fails to describe or suggest
that both a first redo disk and a second redo disk are directly linked to the
same base virtual disk." App. Br. 11. With respect to Figure 4 of
Hirschfeld, Appellants argue as follows:
It appears that Examiner asserts that the Core file 403 in
Figure 4 is a base virtual disk that is directly linked to delta files
( alleged first and second redo disks). However, as best
understood by Appellant, Figure 4 of Hirschfeld describes a
Core file 403 (alleged base virtual disk), that is directly linked
to AO (alleged redo disk), the Core file 403 is also linked to Lil
(allegedly redo disk). However, neither Lil [n]or AO [is]
directly linked to a logical server (LSA-LSD), alleged template
VM. As described in paragraph [0053], AO is directly linked to
A 1, and Li I is directly linked to BO and L'i2. Thus, even
assuming that A 1 and Li I are a first redo disk and a second redo
disk, neither of Al and Lil [is] directly linked to LSA-LSD
(alleged template virtual machines). As such, Appellant
submits that Hirschfeld fails to describe or suggest "linking the
template VM directly to the first redo disk, and the first redo
disk directly to the base virtual disk; and linking the second VM
directly to the second redo disk, and the second redo disk
directly to the base virtual disk," as recited in Claim 31.
App. Br. 11-12.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner explains that the
term "base virtual disk" in claim 31 is broad enough to "cover combinations
of core files and delta files." Ans. 4--5. Thus, the Examiner explains,
"Figure 4 shows two logical servers, LSC and LSD, each linked to a
respective delta file, CO and DO, each linked to a common base virtual disk,
CORE+L'il +L'i2." Ans. 5.
In their Reply Brief, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's
determination "that 'CORE+L'il +L'i2' is a base virtual disk and that each of
LSC and LSD in Figure 4 are VMs," or provide an alternative construction
5
Appeal2018-007097
Application 14/538,742
of the term "base virtual disk" in claim 31. Reply Br. 2. Instead, Appellants
advance a new argument that Hirschfeld does not "describe or suggest that
logical server LSC is a template VM (or template logical server) from which
logical server LSD is cloned therefrom." Id. at 2-3. Appellants further
argue that Hirschfeld does not teach that the "template VM as claimed was
linked to the base virtual disk prior to the second VM being created/ cloned."
Id. at 3.
Finally, although Appellants acknowledge that "Chandrasekaran
describes cloning VMs," they argue that "the combination would still not
describe that after cloning the template VM to get the second VM," the steps
of "'creating a first redo disk for the template VM' and 'creating a second
redo disk for the second VM without copying the contents of the base virtual
disk"' would be performed. Id. at 4.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. For the reasons discussed
below, we sustain the Examiner's rejections.
We agree with the Examiner that Figure 4 of Hirschfeld teaches first
and second VMs (LSC, LSD), first and second redo disks (CO, DO), the step
of linking the first VM directly to the first redo disk and the first redo disk
directly to the base virtual disk (Storage 405), and the step of linking the
second VM directly to the second redo disk, and the second redo disk
directly to the base virtual disk. Appellants do not appear to dispute this
finding. Reply Br. 1-2.
We find unpersuasive Appellants' argument that Figure 4 of
Hirschfeld does not disclose that the first VM (LSC) is a template that is
6
Appeal2018-007097
Application 14/538,742
used to clone the second VM (LSD). Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner found
that Chandrasekaran-not Hirschfeld-teaches this limitation and that it
would have been obvious to combine the references to have the virtual
machine LSD in Figure 4 of Hirschfeld be a clone of the template virtual
machine LSC. Final Act. 4-5 ( citing Chandrasekaran).
Specifically, Chandrasekaran discloses "a method for cloning a virtual
machine from a source system to a target system," and it states that "one or
more copies" of the virtual machine may be created. (Chandrasekaran
Abstract, ,r 34). See Chandrasekaran ,r 39 (referring to "all the cloned
machines"); ,r 46 (stating that "one or more copies or clones were created in
the hot cloning process"); ,r 4 7 ("[ r ]egarding the clones, each clone being a
copy of the original"); ,r 48 ("the new clone or clones and the original virtual
machine share storage file 41" (emphasis omitted)); ,r 50 (referring to a
"shared block" of storage that "will still be utilized by the other clones and
original virtual machine"). Because Chandrasekaran teaches using a first
VM to clone multiple additional VMs, Chandrasekaran teaches the use of a
"template" VM under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
"template" in claim 31. A person of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to combine this teaching of Chandrasekaran with Hirschfeld
because both references concern the use and duplication of virtual machines,
and the use of a template virtual machine for LSC in Figure 4 of Hirschfeld
would have been no more than a predictable variation. See KSR Intern. Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellants make no persuasive
showing to the contrary.
We, likewise, disagree with Appellants' second argument-that
Hirschfeld does not disclose linking the template VM to the base virtual disk
7
Appeal2018-007097
Application 14/538,742
before cloning the template VM. Hirschfeld teaches that each VM (logical
server) is linked to a virtual disk when the logical server is created. Reply
Br. 3; Hirschfeld ,r 29. Hirschfeld also teaches that the system "instantiates"
logical server LS 1105 ( virtual machine) and then "mounts the VHD 1
[virtual hard disk] to the LSl 105." Hirschfeld ,r 29. A person of ordinary
skill would therefore understand that a logical server ( virtual machine)
would be linked to a virtual disk before that logical server is copied or
cloned because Hirschfeld discloses that the logical server and the virtual
disk are linked at the time the logical server is created.
We, likewise, find unpersuasive Appellants' third argument-that the
prior art does not disclose that the cloning of the template VM occurs before
the first and second redo disks are created. Reply Br. 4. We see no
requirement in claim 31 that the claimed step of receiving a request to clone
the template VM must occur before the steps of creating the first and second
redo disks. "Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps
are not ordinarily construed to require one." Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v.
Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342--43 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Performing the
steps in order may be required "when the method steps implicitly require
that they be performed in the order written," but they will not be required to
be performed in order where "nothing in the claim or the specification
directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction." Id. See Altiris,
Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369--70 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Here, nothing in the claim language requires that the "creating a first
redo disk for the template VM" and "creating a second redo disk for the
second VM without copying contents of the base virtual disk" both must be
performed before the step of "receiving a request to clone the template VM
8
Appeal2018-007097
Application 14/538,742
to produce a second VM." Nor do Appellants point to any language in the
claim or the Specification that would require that the steps be performed in
this order. Consequently, we find that the claims do not dictate the
particular order in which these steps are performed, and we reject
Appellants' argument that the asserted order of steps distinguishes claim 31
from the prior art applied by the Examiner.
Accordingly, Appellants have not demonstrated error in the
Examiner's findings and conclusions of obviousness of claim 31. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 31, as well as the
obviousness rejections of claims 32-50, which Appellants do not argue
separately. See App. Br. 9-10.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 31-50 is affirmed.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9