VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 22, 2020

2019002414 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2020)

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.
14/668,180 03/25/2015 Matthew Conover C218 9508
152691 7590 06/22/2020
Setter Roche LLP
1860 Blake Street
Suite 100
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
PATEL, HIREN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2020 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):
ipadmin@vmware.com
uspto@setterroche.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MATTHEW CONOVER, STEVEN LAWSON, and
JEFFREY ULATOSKI

Appeal 2019-002414
Application 14/668,180
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all claims
pending in this application. 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. 2.
Appeal 2019-002414
Application 14/668,180

2
INVENTION
The present invention is directed to a method and system for
“manag[ing] volumes and virtual machines using a location database
gathered from a hypervisor management system.” Spec. Abstract. Claim 1
is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method of operating a volume attachment service to
manage volumes and virtual machines, the method comprising:
transferring a location request to a hypervisor
management service to identify locations of one or more virtual
machines, wherein the one or more virtual machines execute
across a plurality of hypervisors managed by the hypervisor
management service;
receiving the locations of the one or more virtual
machines and storing the locations in a location database,
wherein the locations comprise at least a hypervisor identifier
for a hypervisor associated with each of the one or more virtual
machines; and
in response to a volume action request for a first virtual
machine, directing the volume action request to a hypervisor for
the first virtual machine based on the locations in the location
database.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.)

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Conover US 2012/0174096 A1 July 5, 2012
Ota et al. US 2013/0311989 A1 Nov. 21, 2013
Furusawa et al. US 2014/0208049 A1 July 24, 2014

REJECTION
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Conover, Ota, and Furusawa. Final Act. 3–11.
Appeal 2019-002414
Application 14/668,180

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Conover does not teach “in response to a volume
action request for a first virtual machine, directing the volume action request
to a hypervisor for the first virtual machine based on the locations in the
location database,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2–3. In
particular, Appellant argues “claim 1 is directed at skipping the
communication to the hypervisor management service when the attachment
is required, and instead maintains information about the locations of the
virtual machine locally at the volume attachment service”; in contrast,
“Conover requires the additional step of communicating with the hypervisor
management service when the attachment is required rather than relying on
locally stored locations of virtual machines to support the attachment.”
Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues “Conover fails to teach that any
determination is made at the virtual machine manager [of Conover] to select
a hypervisor from a plurality of hypervisors,” instead, “Conover merely
describes determining what volumes to attach to a virtual machine, and
using a hypervisor or datacenter manager to attach the volumes.” Appeal
Br. 7–8. Appellant additionally argues “Conover discloses that a local
hypervisor may be contacted to attach the volumes, but never teaches how
the hypervisor is selected,” “fails to teach consulting a [location] database
to determine a hypervisor from a plurality of hypervisors,” and “fails to
teach that the hypervisor is selected based on locations obtained from the
hypervisor management service.” Reply Br. 2–3; Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. At the outset, we note that claim 1 does not require “skipping the
communication to the hypervisor management service when the attachment
Appeal 2019-002414
Application 14/668,180

4
is required” or “maintain[ing] information about the locations of the virtual
machine locally at the volume attachment service,” as Appellant argues. See
Reply Br. 2 (emphases added). Claim 1 recites “operating a volume
attachment service to manage volumes and virtual machines” using “a
location database,” without specifying where the location database is
maintained. And, claim 1 recites “in response to a volume action request for
a first virtual machine, directing the volume action request to a hypervisor
for the first virtual machine based on the locations in the location database,”
without requiring that communication with the hypervisor management
service be skipped when directing the volume action request.2 Thus,
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Even if (arguendo) skipping the hypervisor management service were
required by claim 1—Appellant’s arguments that Conover does not teach the
skipping are unpersuasive. In particular, Appellant’s arguments do not

2 We additionally note Appellant’s Specification does not expressly disallow
communication with the hypervisor management service during volume
attachment; instead, the Specification merely provides discussion of non-
limiting examples in which communication with the hypervisor management
service may be skipped. See Spec. ¶¶ 23 (“rather than relying on hypervisor
management service 161 to handle every volume action request, volume
action service 171 may distribute the various volume action requests to the
hypervisors, allowing the hypervisors to individually handle the attachment
of the volumes”) (emphasis added), 26 (“In some examples, volume action
service 171 may inquire hypervisor management service 161 at periodic
intervals to maintain an updated database of virtual machine locations” and
“[i]n some instances, volume action service 171 may attempt to use
hypervisor management service 161 to process a volume action request.
However, if hypervisor management service 161 is overloaded or
inoperable, volume action service 171 may transfer the volume action
request to the appropriate hypervisor based on location database”)
(emphases added).
Appeal 2019-002414
Application 14/668,180

5
address the Examiner’s specific findings that Conover teaches “a virtual
datacenter manager [hypervisor management service] responsible for
managing several hypervisors” and also “expressly teaches directing the
volume action request to a hypervisor for the virtual machine in response to
a volume action request” when “[t]he request to attach volume is directed to
a hypervisor directly by [Conover’s] VM manager.” See Ans. 6–7 (citing
Conover ¶¶ 31, 33–34). More particularly, Conover teaches “[o]nce the VM
manager 440 has selected the relevant set of storage volumes based on the
attach-triggering event, the VM manager 440 directly or indirectly contacts
the hypervisor 430 and requests for the storage volumes 412–416 and/or
application volumes 419A–419D to be attached.” See Conover ¶ 31
(emphases added). For example, “the VM manager 440 could directly
request the storage volumes 412–416 and/or application volumes 419A–
419D to be attached to the virtual machine 420A by connecting to the
hypervisor 430,” thereby skipping the virtual datacenter manager 450
(Examiner’s asserted “hypervisor management service” that is responsible
for managing several hypervisors) while directing the volume action request
to a hypervisor (Conover’s hypervisor 430). See Conover ¶ 31 (emphases
added), Fig. 4. Thus, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that “Conover
requires the additional step of communicating with the hypervisor
management service when the attachment is required.” See Reply Br. 2
(emphases added).
With respect to Appellant’s “locations” arguments (e.g., that
“Conover fails to teach consulting a [location] database to determine a
hypervisor from a plurality of hypervisors” and “fails to teach that the
hypervisor is selected based on locations obtained from the hypervisor
Appeal 2019-002414
Application 14/668,180

6
management service,” see Appeal Br. 8 and Reply Br. 3), we note
Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s combination of
teachings from Conover with Ota and Furusawa. Particularly, the Examiner
finds Conover suggests using a virtual machine (VM) identifying location, as
it would be “impossible to communicate the volume attach request for the
selected VM to the appropriate hypervisor [(Conover’s hypervisor 430)]
without acquiring/knowing location/identifier/IP address of the hypervisor
associated with the selected VM.” Ans. 7 (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner further relies on Ota for teaching that VM locations may be stored
in a database mapping virtual machines to hosts/hypervisor programs, and
relies on Furusawa for teaching that VM locations may include hypervisor
identifiers. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Ota ¶¶ 38, 85, Fig. 10; Furusawa ¶ 45, Fig.
6–7, 11, 20–21); Ans. 6, 8–9. We agree with the Examiner’s reasonable
findings and conclusions. See Ans. 6–9.
Appellant further contends Ota does not teach
transferring a location request to a hypervisor management
service to identify locations of one or more virtual machines,
wherein the one or more virtual machines execute across a
plurality of hypervisors managed by the hypervisor
management service,
as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. In
particular, Appellant argues Ota’s “configuration module that provides
information about a single host and hypervisor is not equivalent or
suggestive to a hypervisor management service that manages a plurality of
hypervisors,” and “Ota fails to teach any configuration where the
configuration module may be responsible for managing a plurality of
hypervisors,” as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Ota ¶¶ 63, 67, 69,
Fig. 5) (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002414
Application 14/668,180

7
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they do not address the combination of teachings from Conover, Ota, and
Furusawa proposed by the Examiner and including (i) the Examiner’s
specific findings that each of Conover and Furusawa teaches the claimed
“one or more virtual machines execute across a plurality of hypervisors
managed by the hypervisor management service” and (ii) the Examiner’s
specific findings that Ota teaches the claimed “transferring a location request
to a hypervisor management service to identify locations of one or more
virtual machines.” See Final Act. 4–6 (citing Conover ¶¶ 10, 31; Ota ¶¶ 37–
38, 69–70, 85, Figs. 6 and 10; Furusawa ¶ 45, Figs. 3, 6–7, 11, and 20–21);
Ans. 6–9, 11–12 (citing Conover ¶¶ 33–34; Furusawa ¶ 89); see also
Furusawa ¶ 43 (describing Figure 3’s “operations administration network
105” that is “used for control communications between the administration
unit 401 and the hypervisors 207, and for data transfers regarding the live
migrations of the virtual machines 209”).
Appellant’s arguments also do not address the Examiner’s findings
that Ota’s DRAS (dynamic resource allocation server) performs “resource
management by dynamically allocating resources to the appropriate VMs”
that execute across a plurality of hosts/physical servers. See Final Act. 5
(citing Ota ¶¶ 37–38, 69–70, 85, Figs. 6 and 10) (emphasis added). For
example, four VMs execute across host 110A and four other VMs execute
across host 110C in Ota’s Figure 6, each host including “a configuration
module 510, and a Hypervisor program” whereby “VMs may be executed on
Hypervisor program,” and Ota’s “DRAS [implemented on a ‘management
Appeal 2019-002414
Application 14/668,180

8
server of the system’] manages . . . VMs and Hypervisor programs.” See
Ota ¶¶ 38 (emphases added), 67 (emphases added), 70, Figs. 5–6.3
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “prior art
neither teaches nor suggests identifying a hypervisor for a virtual machine
based on received locations from a hypervisor management service that
manages a plurality of hypervisors.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added). Ota,
for example, identifies a hypervisor for a VM based on a table mapping of
VMs to hosts/hypervisor programs, the table created by Ota’s DRAS. See
Ota ¶ 85, Fig. 10; Final Act. 5 (citing Ota ¶¶ 37–38, 85, Fig. 10).
Appellant further recites additional limitations of claim 1 (“receiving
the locations of the one or more virtual machines and storing the locations in
a location database, wherein the locations comprise at least a hypervisor
identifier for a hypervisor associated with each of the one or more virtual
machines”) against alleged deficiencies of Ota. See Reply Br. 3;
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant’s discussion of the claimed “receiving” limitations
is unpersuasive of Examiner error because Appellant does not address (i) the
Examiner’s specific findings that Ota teaches the claimed “receiving the
locations of the one or more virtual machines and storing the locations in a
location database” and (ii) the combination of teachings from Ota and
Furusawa proposed by the Examiner for the claimed “receiving” wherein
“the locations comprise at least a hypervisor identifier for a hypervisor
associated with each of the one or more virtual machines.” See Final Act. 5–

3 We note that the totality of the teachings of Ota including Ota’s description
of virtual machines executing across a plurality of hosts managed by DRAS
teaches or suggests that a “hypervisor management service” (Ota’s DRAS)
manages a plurality of hypervisors (Ota’s hosts), as claimed. See Ota ¶¶ 37–
38, 69–70, 85, Figs. 6 and 10.
Appeal 2019-002414
Application 14/668,180

9
6 (citing Ota ¶¶ 37–38, 69–70, 85, Figs. 6 and 10; Furusawa ¶ 45, Figs. 6–7,
11, and 20–21); Ans. 8–9, 11–13.
Therefore, for all the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
the combination of Conover, Ota, and Furusawa. We also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claims 10 and 19
for which Appellant provides the same arguments. Appeal Br. 9.
No separate arguments are presented for the dependent claims. Id.
Thus, for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 19,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2–9, 11–18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Conover,
Ota, and Furusawa. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir.
1983).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Conover, Ota,
Furusawa
1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-002414
Application 14/668,180

10

AFFIRMED