Ex Parte KARAMANOLIS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2019

14010275 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/010,275 08/26/2013
152569 7590 03/04/2019
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - VMware
24 Greenway Plaza
Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christos KARAMANOLIS
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.
B285 3782
EXAMINER
AQUINO, WYNUEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
vmware_admin@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOS KARAMANOLIS, WILLIAM EARL,
MANSI SHAH, and NATHAN BURNETT
Appeal2018-006091
Application 14/010,275
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is VMware, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2018-006091
Application 14/010,275
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to techniques for balancing the usage
variance of a multidimensional set of distributed resources across and within
the individual host computers and providing resources in a networked
cluster. Spec. ,r 15. Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for placing a storage
object in a distributed resources system having a plurality of
nodes, the method comprising:
retrieving different types of resource usage metrics for
each of a plurality of resource containers, wherein each of the
resource containers is a group of storage devices of one of the
nodes;
identifying candidate resource containers among the
plurality of resource containers based on the resource usage
metrics of the different types, wherein each candidate resource
container has an original variance among the resource usage
metrics of the different types;
for each of the candidate resource containers,
determining an expected increased or reduced variance among
the different types of the resource usage metrics that would
result if the storage object were to be placed therein, the storage
object having an associated workload that consumes different
types of resources of the resource container to cause changes in
the different types of resource usage metrics of the resource
container; and
placing the storage object in one of the candidate
resource containers having an expected reduced variance over
the original variance.
2
Appeal2018-006091
Application 14/010,275
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 2
Claims 1-2, 4--8, and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 2012/0204176 Al, published August 9,
2012) ("Tian"), Beaty et al. (US 2013/0185413 Al, published July 18, 2013)
("Beaty") and Pirzada et al. (US 2011/0083131 Al, published April 7, 2011)
("Pirzada"). 3 See Ans. 3-11.
Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Tian, Beaty, Pirzada, and Arimilli et al.
(US 2010/0153966 Al, published June 17, 2010) ("Arimilli"). See Ans. 11-
12.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
A claim under examination is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the underlying specification. See In re
American Acad. of Science Tech., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In
the absence of an express definition of a claim term in the specification or a
clear disclaimer of scope, the claim term is interpreted as broadly as the
ordinary usage of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art would permit.
See In re ICON Health & Fitness, 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
2 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 6, 12, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. See Final
Act. 2. Because the Examiner's Answer failed to include this rejection, we
treat this rejection as withdrawn by the Examiner.
3 The header of the rejection does not include claims 18-20, but the body of
the rejection makes clear that these claims were also rejected. See Ans. 11.
3
Appeal2018-006091
Application 14/010,275
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Obviousness
The Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement of
demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references to
show obviousness. See KSR Int'! Co., v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16
(2007); see also In re Ethicon, 844 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("KSR
directs that an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references
is not necessary to support a conclusion of obviousness."). Further, one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in Appellants' Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner
has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions and concur with
the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as explained below.
Independent Claims 1, 7, 13, and 18
Appellants contend the combination of cited references fails to teach
or suggest "retrieving different types of resource usage metrics for each of a
plurality of resource containers as published by each node of the distributed
system, wherein each of the resource containers is a group of storage devices
of one of the nodes," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited
in independent claims 7, 13, and 18. See App. Br. 9-10. More specifically,
Appellants contend Tian fails to teach or suggest the claimed "storage
4
Appeal2018-006091
Application 14/010,275
devices," and further contend the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed
"resource containe[r] [that] is a group of storage devices of one of the
nodes" as reading on the physical machines (i.e., physical servers) disclosed
in Tian is unreasonable. See App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2. Further,
Appellants contend Beaty fails to cure Tian's deficiencies. See App. Br. 10.
Appellants also contend Tian's memory utilization ratios of physical
machines does not teach or suggest the claimed "resource usage metrics."
See id.; see also Reply Br. 3.
Neither of these contentions are persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Tian teaches a physical machine (i.e., physical
server) that is connected to a storage device, and that Beaty further teaches a
storage device may be a combination of storage components. See Ans. 13
(citing Tian ,r 20; Beaty ,r 149). Claim 1 merely recites that each of the
resource containers is "a group of storage devices of one of the nodes."
Neither the claim, nor Appellants' Specification, provides a definition for a
resource container or a storage device that distinguishes the claimed
"resource containers" from the physical machines/servers taught by the
combination of Tian and Beaty.
Appellants identify original claim 2 of the instant application as
evidence that "resource containers" are defined as "groups of storage disks
residing in each node." See Reply Br. 2. However, this is not persuasive of
error in the Examiner's interpretation of "resource containers" as being
unreasonable for at least two reasons. First, wo do not find the claim
language presented in original claim 2 in claim 1, in either its original or
current form. Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, "the presence of a
dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption
5
Appeal2018-006091
Application 14/010,275
that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim."
Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, it was
reasonable for the Examiner to interpret the claimed "resource containers" as
not requiring "groups of storage disks residing in each node." Second, even
assuming arguendo the claimed "resource containers" require "groups of
storage disks residing in each node," Appellants fail to persuasively establish
how this would distinguish the claimed "resource containers" from the
physical machines/servers taught by the combination of Tian and Beaty.
We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Tian teaches
obtaining metrics of physical machines/servers including memory utilization
ratios. See Ans. 14 (citing Tian ,r,r 26-27, 33). Similar to the claimed
"resource containers," neither the claim, nor Appellants' Specification,
provides a definition for a resource usage metric that distinguishes the
claimed "resource usage metrics" from the memory utilization ratios taught
by Tian.
Appellants further contend the combination of cited references fails to
teach or suggest "placing the storage object in one of the candidate resource
containers" recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13, and
"relocating the storage object to one of the candidate resource containers"
recited in claim 18. See App. Br. 11. More specifically, Appellants contend
Tian fails to teach or suggest the claimed "storage object," and further
contend the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed "storage object" as
reading on the virtual machine disclosed in Tian is unreasonable. See App.
Br. 11-12; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellants further contend Pirzada fails to
cure the deficiencies of Tian. See Reply Br. 4.
6
Appeal2018-006091
Application 14/010,275
These contentions are not persuasive either. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Tian teaches deploying a virtual machine to a
physical machine. See Ans. 4 ( citing Tian ,r 155); see also Tian ,r 157.
Similar to the other argued claim elements, neither the claim, nor
Appellants' Specification, provides a definition for a storage object that
distinguishes the claimed "storage object" from the virtual machine taught
by Tian.
Appellants identify paragraph 4 7 of Appellants' Specification as
explicitly defining "storage object" as a virtual disk or binary large object
(i.e. "blob") and contend this prevents the Examiner from interpreting the
claimed "storage object" as reading on Tian's virtual machine. See App.
Br. 11 (citing Spec. ,r 47). However, as the Examiner correctly finds, this
paragraph of the Specification merely identifies examples of a "storage
object" (including virtual disks and blobs), and makes clear that the
identified examples are not limiting examples. See Ans. 16; see also
Spec. ,r 4 7 ("alternative embodiments ... may enable creation of high level
storage objects ... such as, without limitation, REST objects, files, file
systems, blob (binary large objects), and other objects," emphasis added).
Thus, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of cited references teaches or
suggests all the elements of claims 1, 7, 13, and 18. Therefore, we sustain
the rejections of claims 1, 7, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2018-006091
Application 14/010,275
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims. See App. Br. 10-13. We therefore sustain their rejections for the
reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 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
8