12181743 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

Ex Parte Adams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 2016

12181743 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/181,743 07/29/2008 Raymond J. Adams 56436 7590 03/22/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82257617 2498 EXAMINER GIROUX, GEORGE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2183 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAYMOND J. ADAMS and BRYAN E. STIEKES Appeal2014-004145 Application 12/181,743 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to "data processing system network architectures," and specifically towards "a secure network architecture that integrates virtualization technology into it to support multi- tenant solutions." Spec. i-fi-12, 13. Appeal2014-004145 Application 12/181,743 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A secure network architecture, comprising: a plurality of data processing system servers connected to communicate with a physical switch block, each of the data processing system servers executing a virtual machine software component; and a data processing system implementing a virtualized logical compartment, connected to communicate with the plurality of data processing system servers via the physical switch block, wherein the virtualized logical compartment includes a plurality of virtual components each corresponding to a different one of the virtual machine components. Appellants appeal the following rejection: RI. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Edwards (WO 2006/045846 Al, May 4, 2006) and Eidler (US 2009/0210427 Al, Aug. 20, 2009). Claim Groupings Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 8, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). ANALYSIS Rejection underÂ§ 103(a) over Edwards and Eidler Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Edwards and Eidler teaches or suggests the "data processing system implementing a virtualized logical compartment, connected to communicate with the 2 Appeal2014-004145 Application 12/181,743 plurality of data processing system servers via the physical switch block," as recited in claim 1? Appellants contend claim 1 's "virtualized logical compartment" requires a "software emulation of a logical compartment," and"[ f]or an entity to qualify as a virtualized logical compartment, it must have been resulting from virtualizing a logical compartment." App. Br. 9. Appellants specifically contend that "Edwards teaches only one level of virtualization" and "does not teach a virtualized logical compartment or virtualizing a logical compartment." Id. at 12. Appellants further contend Eidler's VLAN s, "unlike virtual infrastructures, do not include the virtual machines they interconnect, are not compartments, let alone virtual compartments, let alone virtual logical compartments." Id. at 15. In response, the Examiner finds "the claim language does not require such emulation, nor does the specification appear to provide an explicit definition requiring that the virtualized logical compartments are software emulation of a physical compartment" and instead "references the 'virtualized logical compartment' as a grouping of logical (as opposed to physical) groupings of virtual machines running virtual instances of software." Ans. 11. The Examiner further finds "Edwards virtual infrastructures are within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed virtualized logical compartments including pluralities of virtual components corresponding to virtual machine components." Id. at 11, 14. The Examiner also finds Eidler teaches a physical block connecting the data processing system services and data processing systems. Id. at 3, 12. We agree with the Examiner. 3 Appeal2014-004145 Application 12/181,743 Appellants' contentions fail to take into account what the collective teachings of Edwards and Eidler would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." (citations omitted)). This reasoning is applicable here because the Examiner used the combined teachings of Edwards and Eidler in the rejection of claim 1. For example, Edwards describes a "virtual overlay infrastructure" for a user, and an "overlay management layer 79 manages the mappings 95, 98 of the virtual infrastructures to the underlying physical resources in the form of a physical network 99 comprising numerous physical entities," and each "virtual infrastructure has a mapping 95, 98 of virtual to physical entities." Edwards p. 20, Fig. 1. Meanwhile, Eidler notes that several VLANs "can co-exist on a single physical switch, allows prioritization based on QoS for a particular service type or customer, and ensure that the data of one customer is inaccessible to other customers." Eidler i-f 74. In other words, Edwards teaches physical entities or physical servers being mapped to virtual entities and thereby each executing virtual components, as well as the virtual infrastructures which include the virtual components mapped to the physical entities; and Eidler teaches providing a physical switch, with which servers and virtual components can be connected to communicate. 4 Appeal2014-004145 Application 12/181,743 Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence that the claimed "virtualized logical compartment" requires software emulation of a logical compartment or two levels of virtualization. See App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 12-13. Appellants' Specification references the virtualized logical compartment, also known as VIM DMZ and virtualized logical DMZ compartments, appearing "to a client system as if the virtualized logical compartment were the plurality of servers each executing a virtual machine software component" (Spec. i-f 39), and hosting "the management interfaces of the physical infrastructure which has been established for the creation of virtual machine instances within this physical infrastructure" (Spec. i-f 43). However, nowhere does the Specification describe multi-level virtualization as necessitated by the virtualized logical compartment. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Edward's physical entities, mapped to virtual entities, using Eidler' s physical switch, teaches or suggests data processing system servers connected to communicate with a physical switch block, each of which executed a virtual component, as required by claim 1; and virtual infrastructures including virtual components mapped to the physical entities, using Eidler' s physical switch, teaches or suggests "a data processing system implementing a virtualized logical compartment, connected to communicate with the plurality of data processing system servers via the physical switch block, wherein the virtualized logical compartment includes a plurality of virtual components each corresponding to a different one of the virtual machine components," as required by claim 1. For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred. In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not demonstrated that the cited art fails to teach or suggest the argued 5 Appeal2014-004145 Application 12/181,743 limitations, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 2-7 and commensurate independent claim 13 with dependent claims 14--18, not separately argued (App. Br. 16, 18), is sustained. Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Edwards and Eidler teaches or suggests "the first architecture portion is isolated from direct client access," as recited in claim 8? Appellants contend that "Edwards clearly implies that users can directly access their own respective virtual infrastructures and, therefore, the physical infrastructure that hosts the virtual infrastructures" and thereby "in Edwards, a user is not isolated from direct access to the first architecture portion (that hosts the virtual machine)." App. Br. 17. In response, the Examiner finds "each virtual infrastructure entity may be associated with a user ... and that the data of each virtual overlay controlling these entities may be isolated from access by other virtual entities (users/clients)" and "the architecture portion of one virtual overlay and its entities is isolated from direct user (client) access by another user (client)." Ans. 16. We agree with the Examiner. For example, Edwards describes a "virtual overlay infrastructure" for a user, and an "overlay management layer 79 manages the mappings 95, 98 of the virtual infrastructures to the underlying physical resources in the form of a physical network 99 comprising numerous physical entities," and each "virtual infrastructure has a mapping 95, 98 of virtual to physical entities." Edwards p. 20, Fig. 1. Edward further describes "a user A administration function 91 and a user B administration function 92 separated from the 6 Appeal2014-004145 Application 12/181,743 underlying overlay management layer." Id. In other words, Edwards teaches physical entities or physical servers, which are mapped to the virtual entities and thereby each execute virtual components, as well as the virtual infrastructures which include the virtual components mapped to the physical entities, and separate user administrative functions. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence that the claimed "virtualized logical compartment" requires software emulation of a logical compartment or two levels of virtualization. See App. Br. 9, Reply Br. 12- 13. Appellants also have not identified in the Specification anything that describes multi-level virtualization as necessitated by the virtualized logical compartment. Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Edward's physical entities, mapped to virtual entities, teaches or suggests "first architecture portion including a plurality of data processing system servers ... executing a virtual machine software component," as required by claim 8; and Edward's virtual infrastructures including virtual components mapped to the physical entities, with separate user administrative functions, teaches or suggests the "a second architecture portion including a plurality of data processing systems each implementing at least one virtualized logical compartment ... wherein each virtualized logical compartment includes a plurality of virtual components each corresponding to a different one of the virtual machine components; and a client interface ... wherein the first architecture portion is isolated from direct client access," as required by claim 8. For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred. In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not demonstrated that the cited art fails to teach or suggest the argued 7 Appeal2014-004145 Application 12/181,743 limitations, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 8, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 9-12, not separately argued (App. Br. 17), is sustained. Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Edwards and Eidler teaches "a physical switch through which said virtual applications communicate with said real applications," as recited in claim 19? Appellants contend "Edwards does not disclose or suggest virtual applications in any way, shape, or form," and that since "Edwards does not disclose virtual applications, Edwards cannot teach that they communicate with real applications over a physical switch." App. Br. 22, 23; Reply Br. 18. Appellants further contend that Eidler does not "disclose virtual applications," and "fail[s] to disclose a virtual logical compartment." App. Br. 23. In response, the Examiner finds "the broadest reasonable interpretation of the virtual application network portion hosting virtual applications ... based upon the appellant's specification, would include the overlay mapping virtual infrastructures containing virtual machines running virtual instances of applications, including operating systems (OS) taught by Edwards." Ans. 17. The Examiner further finds Eidler teaches the physical switch through which virtual and real application communicate. Id. at 9. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants' contentions fail to take into account what the collective teachings of Edwards and Eidler would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 ("The test for 8 Appeal2014-004145 Application 12/181,743 obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." (citations omitted)). This reasoning is applicable here because the Examiner used the combined teachings of Edwards and Eidler in the rejection of claim 1. For example, as noted supra, Edwards describes a "virtual overlay infrastructure" for a user, and an "overlay management layer 79 manages the mappings 95, 98 of the virtual infrastructures to the underlying physical resources in the form of a physical network 99 comprising numerous physical entities," and each "virtual infrastructure has a mapping 95, 98 of virtual to physical entities." Edwards p. 20, Fig. 1. Meanwhile, Eidler describes several VLAN s "can co-exist on a single physical switch, allows prioritization based on QoS for a particular service type or customer, and ensure that the data of one customer is inaccessible to other customers." Eidler i-f 74. In other words, Edwards teaches physical entities or physical servers, which are mapped to the virtual entities and thereby each execute virtual components, as well as the virtual infrastructures which include the virtual components mapped to the physical entities, as well as the mappings between the virtual and physical entities; and Eidler teaches providing a physical switch, with which servers and virtual components can be connected to communicate. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Edward's physical entities, mapped to virtual entities, teaches or suggests "a virtual-machine network portion," as required by claim 19; and Edward's virtual infrastructures 9 Appeal2014-004145 Application 12/181,743 including virtual components mapped to the physical entities, and connected through the mappings of the virtual and physical entities, using Eidler's physical switch, teaches or suggests and a "virtual-application network portion including ... a physical switch through which said virtual applications communicate with said real applications," as required by claim 19. For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred. In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not demonstrated that the cited art fails to teach or suggest the argued limitations, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 19, as well as the rejection of dependent claim 20, not separately argued (App. Br. 23), is sustained. DECISION We affirm the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection RI. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 10