VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2021

2020003414 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
14/333,213 07/16/2014 Aashish Parikh B744 (500105-1590) 9740
152577 7590 08/30/2021
Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP (VMW)
3200 Windy Hill Road, SE
Suite 1600E
Atlanta, GA 30339
EXAMINER
LIN, SHERMAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2021 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):
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
uspatents@thomashorstemeyer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AASHISH PARIKH
Appeal 2020-003414
Application 14/333,213
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, 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 1–23 and 25. Claim 24 is cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

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. 2.
Appeal 2020-003414
Application 14/333,213

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s Specification describes resource management operations
that are applicable to distributed computing environments. Spec., Abstract.
The claimed embodiments relate to managing demand for resources in a
distributed computing environment in which load balancing algorithms are
used to optimize system performance. The Specification explains that load
balancing algorithms can achieve significant performance improvements
when implemented. However, the algorithms used to determine the optimal
load balancing operations, can be computationally expensive and require
migrating clients between host computers in a cluster. That is, as the load
balancing algorithm is increasingly aggressive, the load balancing may be
improved—but that improvement comes at the cost of decreased application
performance for clients running in the cluster. The claimed method involves
collecting and analyzing demands made on system resources over time in
order to predict future demand at specific times for the system resources.
Those predictions are used to adjust the aggressiveness of the load balancing
algorithm so as not to impair application performance of client applications
running on the cluster. Spec. ¶ 36. The Specification explains:
As an example, in anticipation of an increase in resource demand,
the option setting unit may change one or more resource
management options related to load balancing aggressiveness so
that the aggressiveness of the load balancing performed by the
resource management module is decreased. Conversely, in
anticipation of an increase in resource demand, the option setting
unit may change one or more resource management options
related to load balancing aggressiveness so that the
aggressiveness of the load balancing performed by the resource
management module is increased.
Id.
Appeal 2020-003414
Application 14/333,213

3
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for performing resource management
operations in a distributed computer system, the method
comprising:
receiving resource demand metrics of clients running in
the distributed computer system;
analyzing the resource demand metrics of the clients to
produce predicted resource demands for a specified future time
period;
automatically changing a resource management option of
a resource management analysis algorithm from a first option
setting to a second option setting at a first time prior to the
specified future time period based on the predicted resource
demands of the clients for the specified future time period, the
resource management analysis algorithm including at least a load
balancing operation that is performed in the distributed computer
system when executed, the first and second option settings being
different settings for a parameter of the resource management
analysis algorithm that changes a maximum amount of execution
threads that can be used for at least the load balancing operation
of the resource management analysis algorithm for the first time,
wherein the second option setting comprises an aggressiveness
load balancing setting that is based on a proximity of the first
time to the specified future time period; and
executing the resource management analysis algorithm
with the second option setting in anticipation of the predicted
resource demands at the specified future time period.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-003414
Application 14/333,213

4
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Chen US 5,819,030 Oct. 6, 1998
Bakman US 2009/0300173 A1 Dec. 3, 2009
Jain US 2013/0007753 A1 Jan. 3, 2013
Bodik US 2013/0326038 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bakman Chen, and Jain. Final Act. 4–10.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bakman Chen, Jain, and Bodik. Final Act. 11.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of references
teaches or suggests “first and second option settings being different settings
for a parameter of the resource management analysis algorithm that changes
a maximum amount of execution threads that can be used for at least the
load balancing operation of the resource management analysis algorithm for
the first time,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Bakman, Chen and
Jain. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner relies on Bakman as teaching the
“receiving” and “analyzing” steps of claim 1. Final Act. 4 (citing Bakman

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
Appeal 2020-003414
Application 14/333,213

5
¶¶ 9, 166). The Examiner further determines that “Bakman discloses a
proactive management method for improving performance in allocated
resources in a virtual environment” but “do(es) not disclose an optimization
to computing in multi-threaded applications by changing a maximum
number of threads for computing.” Final Act. 4 (citing Bakman ¶ 5). The
Examiner cites Chen as teaching the lengthy “automatically changing” step,
including “first and second option settings being different settings for a
parameter of the resource management analysis algorithm that changes a
maximum amount of execution threads that can be used for at least the load
balancing operation of the resource management analysis algorithm for the
first time.” Final Act. 5 (citing Chen Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 17–29, col. 6, ll. 47–
55). The Examiner explains:
Chen discloses: the first and second option settings (e.g.,
parameters of max session threads, col. 6 lines 47-55) being
different settings (e.g., first run and re-run of performance
optimizer calculated parameters, col. 4 lines 17-29) for a
parameter of the resource management analysis algorithm (e.g.,
MOB and DSA with registry parameters, col. 6 lines 47-55) that
changes a maximum amount of execution threads (e.g.,
parameter for max session threads) that can be used for at least
the load balancing operation (e.g., performance optimizer is a
load balancer) of the resource management analysis algorithm
for the first time.
Ans. 13.
Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because “setting the
maximum number of session threads, as described in Chen, does not
correspond to having ‘different settings for a parameter of the resource
management analysis algorithm that change[] a maximum amount of
execution threads,’ as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further
argues “Chen does not mention ‘execution threads that can be used for at
Appeal 2020-003414
Application 14/333,213

6
least the load balancing operation of the resource management analysis
algorithm for the first time,’ as recited in claim 1.” Id.
We are persuaded the Examiner has erred. Chen “generally relates to
optimizing the performance of a server computer.” Chen col. 1, l. 7–8.
Chen describes a client/server environment having an email server having
various components including a directory service agent (DSA), a message
transfer agent (MTA), and a message database (MDB). Chen col. 3, ll. 35–
40. Chen teaches that “[t]he DSA and MDB components contained database
engines having associated parameters that can be adjusted to increase the
performance of the server,” and further that “the DSA, MTA and MDB
components each have associated performance parameters that are
adjustable, and that should be set to certain values depending on the role the
server is to play in the system.” Id. at ll. 43–45, 50–53.
Chen explains that server optimization is achieved through the use of
a “performance optimizer program” such that “[w]hen the administrator
indicates that the optimizer should execute, the optimizer program shuts
down each of the services.” Id. at ll. 57–60. With the services shutdown,
“calculation algorithms utilize the data to suggest parameter settings for the
DSA, MTA, and MDB components to achieve optimal performance.” Id.
col 4, ll. 19–21. Chen further teaches that these parameter settings may
include “a registry parameter for setting the maximum number of session
threads that will be created to service an incoming request.”
The Examiner finds Chen’s description of the registry parameter of
session threads and the administrator’s ability to adjust them teaches the
recited “first and second option settings being different settings for a
parameter for a parameter of the resource management analysis algorithm
Appeal 2020-003414
Application 14/333,213

7
that changes a maximum amount of execution threads.” Ans. 13. We
discern no error with this finding. However, the claim also requires that the
recited “maximum amount of execution threads” be able to be “used for at
least the load balancing operation of the resource management analysis
algorithm.” That is, the maximum amount of execution threads must be the
maximum number of threads that the load balancing operation uses itself,
and not the maximum number of execution threads for the optimized
database system that results from carrying out the load balancing operation.
Here, the Examiner’s findings fall short. The Examiner finds that
Chen’s optimizer program corresponds to the recited “load balancing
operation of the resource management analysis algorithm.” Ans. 13
(“performance optimizer is a load balancer”). However, as Appellant
correctly notes, “Chen does not mention ‘execution threads that can be used
for at least the load balancing operation of the resource management
analysis algorithm.’” Appeal Br. 9. Rather, the maximum number of
execution threads described in Chen are used not for the performance
optimizer program (which the Examiner finds corresponds to the load
balancing operation and execute the load balancing process), but instead for
operation of the mail server system itself. Chen col. 6, ll. 47–48 (“maximum
number of session threads that will be created to service an incoming
request”). As such, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has erred in
finding Chen teaches or suggests the argued limitation, and we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Remaining Claims
Independent claims 10 and 18 recite limitations commensurate in
scope to the argued limitation above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain
Appeal 2020-003414
Application 14/333,213

8
the rejection of these claims for the same reasons. The remaining claims are
dependent, and they stand with their respective base claims.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–23 103 Bakman, Chen,
Jain
1–23
25 103 Bakman, Chen,
Jain, Bodik
25
Overall
Outcome
1–23, 25

REVERSED