International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

2019003793 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
14/323,607 07/03/2014 Chandrashekhar G. Deshpande IN920140004US1 4991
81615 7590 09/21/2020
Law Offices of Ira D. Blecker, P.C.
16 BERRY LANE
WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY 12590
EXAMINER
RAZA, MUHAMMAD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 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):
idb@bleckeriplaw.com
pokeepsie@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHANDRASHEKHAR G. DESHPANDE,
SHANKAR S. KALYANA, JIGNESHKUMAR K. KARIA, and
GANDHI SIVAKUMAR
____________

Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, and 16–21. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention synchronizes clocks in cloud computing. To
this end, a virtualized computing cloud with a centralized clock is
partitioned into multiple virtualized logical server clouds. Different types of
clocks are then selected and implemented in each cloud, and the centralized
clock is disabled such the each virtualized logical server cloud is
synchronized only to its respective clock type. This arrangement solves the
problems associated with the previous “one clock type fits all” approach,
especially when a centralized clock is not the best clock to synchronize a
particular server cloud. See generally Abstract; Spec. 5–7; Fig. 2. Claim 1
is illustrative:
1. A method of clock synchronization in cloud computing
comprising:

providing a plurality of physical computer assets including at least one
physical server having a central processing unit;

linking the plurality of physical computer assets together to form a
virtualized computing cloud, the virtualized computing cloud having a
centralized clock for coordinating the operation of the virtualized computing
cloud;

logically partitioning the virtualized computing cloud into a plurality
of virtualized logical server clouds, each of the virtualized logical server
clouds having a local clock synchronized to the centralized clock of the
virtualized computing cloud;

selecting a first clock type from a clock protocol palette associated
with the virtualized computing cloud for a first virtualized logical server
cloud, the clock protocol palette having a plurality of different clock
protocol types, wherein the first clock type selected is a suitable clock for
synchronization of the first virtualized logical server cloud;

Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

3
selecting a second clock type from the clock protocol palette
associated with the virtualized computing cloud for a second virtualized
logical server cloud such that the first clock type and the second clock type
are different clock types, wherein the second clock type selected is a suitable
clock for synchronization of the second virtualized logical server cloud;

implementing the first clock type in the first virtualized logical server
cloud such that the first clock type is synchronized to the first virtualized
logical server cloud;

implementing the second clock type in the second virtualized logical
server cloud such that the second clock type is synchronized to the second
virtualized logical server cloud, the second clock type being implemented in
the second virtualized logical server cloud at the same time as the first clock
type being implemented in the first virtualized logical server cloud; and

disabling the centralized clock in the first and second virtualized
logical server clouds so that the first virtualized logical server cloud is
synchronized only to the first clock type and the second virtualized logical
server cloud is synchronized only to the second clock type;

wherein the method is performed on one or more computing devices.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art in
Deshpande (US 2016/0006804 Al; published Jan. 7, 2016) (“APA”), Josh
Matson, Choosing the Correct Time Synchronization Protocol and
Incorporating the 1756-TIME Module in Your Application, Pub. ENET-
WP030A-EN-E, Rockwell Automation, Inc. (2013) (“Matson”), and
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

4
Zampetti (US 2008/0049743 Al; published Feb. 28, 2008). Final Act. 2–7,
10–15.2,3
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over APA, Matson, Zampetti, and Sinha (US
2015/0350101 Al; published Dec. 3, 2015). Final Act. 7–9.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over APA, Matson, Zampetti, and Huang (US 2015/0058486
Al; published Feb. 26, 2015). Final Act. 15–16.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over APA, Matson, Zampetti, and Muller (US 2014/0165060
Al; published June 12, 2014). Final Act. 16–17.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over APA and Lawson (US 2013/0212420
Al; published Aug. 15, 2013). Final Act. 18–22.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over APA, Lawson, and Huang. Final Act. 22–23.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over APA, Lawson, and Muller. Final Act. 23–24.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed March
28, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 27, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 15, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
(4) the Reply Brief filed April 12, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
3 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18–21 over APA,
Matson, and Zampetti twice in connection with different sets of rejections.
See Final Act. 2–7 (first rejection set), 10–15 (second rejection set).
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

5
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over APA and Chaffee (US 2006/0109376
Al; published May 25, 2006). Final Act. 25–28.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over APA, Chaffee, and Huang. Final Act. 28–30.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over APA, Chaffee, and Muller. Final Act. 30–31.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over APA and Chen (US 2012/0042047 Al;
published Feb. 16, 2012). Final Act. 32–35.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over APA, Chen, and Huang. Final Act. 35–36.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over APA, Chen, and Muller. Final Act. 36–37.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over APA and Frels (US 2014/0122915 Al;
published May 1, 2014). Final Act. 38–41.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over APA, Frels, and Huang. Final Act. 41–42.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over APA, Frels, and Muller. Final Act. 43–44.

Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

6
THE FIRST REJECTION OVER APA, MATSON, AND ZAMPETTI
(“FIRST REJECTION SET”)4

Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that APA
logically partitions a virtualized computing cloud into virtualized logical
server clouds, where each server cloud’s local clock is synchronized to the
virtualized computing cloud’s centralized clock. Final Act. 2–3. Although
the Examiner acknowledges that APA does not (1) implement selected first
and second clock types into respective virtualized logical server clouds, and
(2) disable the centralized clock as claimed, the Examiner cites Matson for
teaching this feature. Final Act. 3–6. The Examiner also acknowledges that
the APA/Matson system does not implement the first and second clock types
in the respective server clouds simultaneously, but cites Zampetti for
teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious.
Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that not only does Matson’s factory floor automation
scheme fail to synchronize clocks in a cloud computing system, all hardware
components in levels 0 to 2 of Matson’s system are driven by the same
Precision Time Protocol (PTP) clock that is synchronized to a centralized
Network Time Protocol (NTP) clock. Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 2–4, 10.
Although Appellant acknowledges that Matson uses different clock types for
levels 0 to 2 and 3 to 5, respectively, Appellant nonetheless contends that
each of these clock types is synchronized to a centralized NTP clock. Reply
Br. 10–11. According to Appellant, Matson’s centralized NTP clock is not

4 Because the Examiner rejects the appealed claims cumulatively over six
distinct sets of rejections (see Final Act. 2, 10, 18, 25, 32, 38), we address
each set in turn beginning with the first set.
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

7
disabled such that any two components are synchronized to their own clocks
as claimed. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 7–8, 11–13. Appellant adds that the
Examiner’s reliance on Zampetti is likewise misplaced, for although
Appellant acknowledges that Zampetti’s various timing sources may be
available at any given time, Zampetti does not use two different clocks for
two different components simultaneously as claimed. Appeal Br. 11; Reply
Br. 15–16.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that APA, Matson, and Zampetti collectively would have taught or
suggested (1) logically partitioning a virtualized computing cloud into
virtualized logical server clouds, where each server cloud’s local clock is
synchronized to the virtualized computing cloud’s centralized clock; (2)
implementing selected first and second clock types into respective
virtualized logical server clouds simultaneously; and (3) disabling the
centralized clock in the server clouds such that the first and second server
clouds are synchronized only to their respective clock types?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 over APA, Matson, and Zampetti is problematic on this record.
Although the Examiner’s findings regarding APA (Final Act. 3) are
undisputed, we nonetheless find the Examiner’s reliance on Matson and
Zampetti to cure APA’s deficiencies with respect to (1) implementing
selected first and second clock types into respective virtualized logical
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

8
server clouds simultaneously; and (2) disabling the centralized clock in the
server clouds such that the first and second server clouds are synchronized
only to their respective clock types is untenable on this record.
As shown in Matson’s Figure 1, time is managed using NTP in levels
3 to 5, but between levels 3 and 2, NTP is converted to PTP to allow more
accurate synchronization at the Cell/Area Zone level. Matson 4–5.5 To this
end, an embedded switch in a 1756-TIME Module shown in Matson’s
Figure 3 can be used. Matson 6–7.
The import of this discussion is that NTP is the standard timing
protocol used not only exclusively in Matson’s levels 3 to 5, but also as the
basis for converting to PTP for use in lower levels. The NTP timing source
is, therefore, effectively a centralized master clock to which other clocks are
synchronized—including those that use PTP.
Although this functionality effectively implements two different clock
types, namely NTP and PTP, respectively, we fail to see—nor has the
Examiner shown—that the centralized clock in the APA/Matson system is
disabled such that each respective virtualized logical server cloud is
synchronized only to its respective clock type as claimed. If anything,
Matson’s centralized NTP clock remains active not only for use in levels 3
to 5, but also as a basis for conversion to PTP for use in lower levels.
Accord Reply Br. 11 (“The plain teaching of Matson is to have a centralized
clock running throughout the plant to which other clocks may be
synchronized.”).

5 Although the Matson reference is unpaginated, we nonetheless refer to the
reference’s pages in the order that they appear in the record.
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

9
We reach this conclusion despite the user’s ability to switch source
clock types in the graphical user interface in Matson’s Figure 46 as the
Examiner indicates. See Ans. 27–34. Although switching from one type of
source clock to another disables the former source clock, the respective
server clouds in the APA/Matson/Zampetti system would still not be
synchronized only to their respective clock types as claimed, for both
clouds’ clocks would still depend on the newly-selected centralized source
clock. In other words, the centralized clock would still be enabled in this
scenario, albeit a different centralized clock.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 7 and 13 that recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 6, 12, and 18–21 for
similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellant’s other
associated arguments.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION IN THE FIRST SET
Because the Examiner has not shown that the additional cited prior art
cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent
claims 1, 7, and 13, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17 over APA, Matson, Zampetti, and Sinha (Final
Act. 7–9) for similar reasons.

6 Although Matson does not label any figure as “Figure 4,” we nonetheless
refer to the first unlabeled figure on Matson’s page 7 as “Figure 4”
consistent with the Examiner’s nomenclature. Accord Ans. 32 (noting that
this unlabeled figure is the fourth figure in the Matson reference).
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

10

THE SECOND REJECTION OVER APA, MATSON, AND ZAMPETTI
(“SECOND REJECTION SET”)

For the reasons indicated previously regarding the Examiner’s first
rejection over APA, Matson, and Zampetti in connection with the first
rejection set, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s second rejection of
claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18–21 over APA, Matson, and Zampetti in
connection with the second rejection set. See Final Act. 10–15.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS IN THE SECOND SET
Because the Examiner has not shown that the additional cited prior art
cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent
claims 1, 7, and 13 in the second rejection set, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of (1) dependent claims 4, 10, and 16 over APA,
Matson, Zampetti, and Huang (Final Act. 15–16); and (2) claims 5, 11, and
17 over APA, Matson, Zampetti, and Muller (Final Act. 16–17) for similar
reasons.

THE REJECTION OVER APA AND LAWSON (“THIRD SET”)
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that APA
logically partitions a virtualized computing cloud into virtualized logical
server clouds, where each server cloud’s local clock is synchronized to the
virtualized computing cloud’s centralized clock. Final Act. 18–19.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that APA does not (1) implement
selected first and second clock types into respective virtualized logical
server clouds simultaneously, and (2) disable the centralized clock as
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

11
claimed, the Examiner cites Lawson for teaching this feature in concluding
that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 19–20.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Lawson is misplaced
because Lawson’s device clocks are synchronized to the same central cloud
clock unlike the claimed invention where different clock types are not
synchronized to a central clock, nor is Lawson’s central clock disabled as in
the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 17–19.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that APA and Lawson collectively would have taught or suggested (1)
logically partitioning a virtualized computing cloud into virtualized logical
server clouds, where each server cloud’s local clock is synchronized to the
virtualized computing cloud’s centralized clock; (2) implementing selected
first and second clock types into respective virtualized logical server clouds
simultaneously; and (3) disabling the centralized clock in the server clouds
such that the first and second server clouds are synchronized only to their
respective clock types?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 over APA and Lawson is problematic on this record. Although
the Examiner’s findings regarding APA (Final Act. 18–19) are undisputed,
we nonetheless find the Examiner’s reliance on Lawson to cure APA’s
deficiencies with respect to (1) implementing selected first and second clock
types into respective virtualized logical server clouds simultaneously; and
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

12
(2) disabling the centralized clock in the server clouds such that the first and
second server clouds are synchronized only to their respective clock types is
untenable on this record.
As Lawson’s Abstract explains, an industrial device can synchronize
its internal clock with a clock associated with a cloud platform. To this end,
the cloud’s clock can be designated as a master clock and the industrial
controller’s synchronization component 316 adjusts the controller’s internal
clock 320 to converge with the cloud’s clock. See Lawson ¶ 54, 56; Fig. 3.
The import of this discussion is that the cloud clock is effectively a
centralized master clock to which other clocks are synchronized. Even
assuming, without deciding, that this functionality implements different
clock types in paragraph 47 as the Examiner seems to suggest (see Final Act.
19–20), we fail to see—nor has the Examiner shown—that the centralized
clock in the APA/Lawson system is disabled such that each respective
virtualized logical server cloud is synchronized only to its respective clock
type as claimed. If anything, Lawson’s centralized clock remains active to
synchronize other clocks. Accord Appeal Br. 18 (noting that all of Lawson’s
device clocks are synchronized to the same central cloud clock).
We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that clock
types can be switched as the Examiner seems to suggest. See Final Act. 19–
20. Although switching from one type of source clock to another disables
the former source clock, the respective server clouds in the APA/Lawson
system would still not be synchronized only to their respective clock types as
claimed, for both clouds’ clocks would still depend on the newly-selected
centralized source clock. In other words, the centralized clock would still be
enabled in this scenario, albeit a different centralized clock.
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

13
To the extent that the Examiner finds otherwise, we disagree. That
the Examiner failed to respond to Appellant’s arguments in this regard as
Appellant indicates (Reply Br. 2) only further undermines the propriety of
the Examiner’s rejection.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 7 and 13 that recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 6, 12, and 18–21 for
similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellant’s other
associated arguments.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS IN THE THIRD SET
Because the Examiner has not shown that the additional cited prior art
cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent
claims 1, 7, and 13 in the third rejection set, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of (1) dependent claims 4, 10, and 16 over APA,
Lawson, and Huang (Final Act. 22–23); and (2) claims 5, 11, and 17 over
APA, Lawson, and Muller (Final Act. 23–24) for similar reasons.

THE REJECTION OVER APA AND CHAFFEE (“FOURTH SET”)
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that APA
logically partitions a virtualized computing cloud into virtualized logical
server clouds, where each server cloud’s local clock is synchronized to the
virtualized computing cloud’s centralized clock. Final Act. 25–26.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that APA does not (1) implement
selected first and second clock types into respective virtualized logical
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

14
server clouds simultaneously, and (2) disable the centralized clock as
claimed, the Examiner cites Chaffee for teaching this feature in concluding
that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 26–27.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Chaffee is misplaced
because (1) Chaffee’s clocks are synchronized together with no centralized
clock that is disabled as claimed, and (2) Chaffee’s clocks do not use
different time protocols simultaneously. Appeal Br. 21–23.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that APA and Chaffee collectively would have taught or suggested
(1) logically partitioning a virtualized computing cloud into virtualized
logical server clouds, where each server cloud’s local clock is synchronized
to the virtualized computing cloud’s centralized clock; (2) implementing
selected first and second clock types into respective virtualized logical
server clouds simultaneously; and (3) disabling the centralized clock in the
server clouds such that the first and second server clouds are synchronized
only to their respective clock types?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 over APA and Chaffee is problematic on this record. Although
the Examiner’s findings regarding APA (Final Act. 25–26) are undisputed,
we nonetheless find the Examiner’s reliance on Chaffee to cure APA’s
deficiencies with respect to (1) implementing selected first and second clock
types into respective virtualized logical server clouds simultaneously; and
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

15
(2) disabling the centralized clock in the server clouds such that the first and
second server clouds are synchronized only to their respective clock types is
untenable on this record.
As Chaffee’s Abstract explains, a motion control system includes a
clock synchronized with disparate clocks associated with disparate motion
control components on a network. By synchronizing motion control
component clocks 106 and 406 with other nodes, a common temporal
understanding exists across the network. Chaffee ¶¶ 37, 61; Figs. 1, 4.
The import of this discussion is that the clocks are synchronized to
each other to ensure a common temporal understanding across the network.
Even assuming, without deciding, that this functionality implements
different clock types in paragraph 37 as the Examiner seems to suggest (see
Final Act. 26–27), we fail to see—nor has the Examiner shown—that the
centralized clock in the APA/Chaffee system is disabled such that each
respective virtualized logical server cloud is synchronized only to its
respective clock type as claimed. To the extent there is a centralized clock
in Chaffee, it remains active to synchronize other clocks. Accord Appeal Br.
22 (noting that there is no centralized clock that is disabled in Chaffee).
We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that clock
types can be switched as the Examiner seems to suggest. See Final Act. 26–
27. Although switching from one type of source clock to another disables
the former source clock, the respective server clouds in the APA/Chaffee
system would still not be synchronized only to their respective clock types as
claimed, for both clouds’ clocks would still depend on the newly-selected
centralized source clock. In other words, the centralized clock would still be
enabled in this scenario, albeit a different centralized clock.
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

16
To the extent that the Examiner finds otherwise, we disagree. That
the Examiner failed to respond to Appellant’s arguments in this regard as
Appellant indicates (Reply Br. 2) only further undermines the propriety of
the Examiner’s rejection.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 7 and 13 that recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 6, 12, and 18–21 for
similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellant’s other
associated arguments.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS IN THE FOURTH SET
Because the Examiner has not shown that the additional cited prior art
cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent
claims 1, 7, and 13 in the third rejection set, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of (1) dependent claims 4, 10, and 16 over APA,
Chaffee, and Huang (Final Act. 28–30); and (2) claims 5, 11, and 17 over
APA, Chaffee, and Muller (Final Act. 30–31) for similar reasons.

THE REJECTION OVER APA AND CHEN (“FIFTH SET”)
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that APA
logically partitions a virtualized computing cloud into virtualized logical
server clouds, where each server cloud’s local clock is synchronized to the
virtualized computing cloud’s centralized clock. Final Act. 32–33.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that APA does not (1) implement
selected first and second clock types into respective virtualized logical
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

17
server clouds simultaneously, and (2) disable the centralized clock as
claimed, the Examiner cites Chen for teaching this feature in concluding that
the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 33–34.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Chen is misplaced
because (1) Chen’s clocks are synchronized together and to a centralized
clock that is not disabled as claimed, and (2) Chen does not use different
clock types simultaneously. Appeal Br. 25–28.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that APA and Chen collectively would have taught or suggested (1) logically
partitioning a virtualized computing cloud into virtualized logical server
clouds, where each server cloud’s local clock is synchronized to the
virtualized computing cloud’s centralized clock; (2) implementing selected
first and second clock types into respective virtualized logical server clouds
simultaneously; and (3) disabling the centralized clock in the server clouds
such that the first and second server clouds are synchronized only to their
respective clock types?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 over APA and Chen is problematic on this record. Although the
Examiner’s findings regarding APA (Final Act. 32–33) are undisputed, we
nonetheless find the Examiner’s reliance on Chen to cure APA’s
deficiencies with respect to (1) implementing selected first and second clock
types into respective virtualized logical server clouds simultaneously; and
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

18
(2) disabling the centralized clock in the server clouds such that the first and
second server clouds are synchronized only to their respective clock types is
untenable on this record.
Chen’s system synchronizes digital content playback on different
content players 110 by synchronizing a local time signal to a time reference
signal on a time server 132. Chen Abstract ¶¶ 20–26; Fig. 1.
The import of this discussion is that the players’ clocks are
synchronized to a centralized clock on the time server. Even assuming,
without deciding, that this functionality implements different clock types as
the Examiner seems to suggest (see Final Act. 33–34), we fail to see—nor
has the Examiner shown—that the centralized clock in the APA/Chen
system is disabled such that each respective virtualized logical server cloud
is synchronized only to its respective clock type as claimed. If anything,
Chen’s centralized clock remains active to synchronize other clocks. Accord
Appeal Br. 26 (noting that Chen’s clocks are synchronized to a centralized
clock at time server 132).
We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that clock
types can be switched as the Examiner seems to suggest. See Final Act. 33–
34. Although switching from one type of source clock to another disables
the former source clock, the respective server clouds in the APA/Chen
system would still not be synchronized only to their respective clock types as
claimed, for both clouds’ clocks would still depend on the newly-selected
centralized source clock. In other words, the centralized clock would still be
enabled in this scenario, albeit a different centralized clock.
To the extent that the Examiner finds otherwise, we disagree. That
the Examiner failed to respond to Appellant’s arguments in this regard as
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

19
Appellant indicates (Reply Br. 2) only further undermines the propriety of
the Examiner’s rejection.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 7 and 13 that recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 6, 12, and 18–21 for
similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellant’s other
associated arguments.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS IN THE FIFTH SET
Because the Examiner has not shown that the additional cited prior art
cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent
claims 1, 7, and 13 in the third rejection set, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of (1) dependent claims 4, 10, and 16 over APA,
Chen, and Huang (Final Act. 35–36); and (2) claims 5, 11, and 17 over APA,
Chen, and Muller (Final Act. 36–37) for similar reasons.

THE REJECTION OVER APA AND FRELS (“SIXTH SET”)
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that APA
logically partitions a virtualized computing cloud into virtualized logical
server clouds, where each server cloud’s local clock is synchronized to the
virtualized computing cloud’s centralized clock. Final Act. 38–39.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that APA does not (1) implement
selected first and second clock types into respective virtualized logical
server clouds simultaneously, and (2) disable the centralized clock as
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

20
claimed, the Examiner cites Frels for teaching this feature in concluding that
the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 39–40.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Frels is misplaced
because (1) Frels’s clocks are synchronized to the same synchronization
protocol, and not to a centralized clock that is not disabled as claimed, and
(2) Frels does not use different clock types simultaneously. Appeal Br. 29–
32.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that APA and Frels collectively would have taught or suggested (1) logically
partitioning a virtualized computing cloud into virtualized logical server
clouds, where each server cloud’s local clock is synchronized to the
virtualized computing cloud’s centralized clock; (2) implementing selected
first and second clock types into respective virtualized logical server clouds
simultaneously; and (3) disabling the centralized clock in the server clouds
such that the first and second server clouds are synchronized only to their
respective clock types?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 over APA and Frels is problematic on this record. Although the
Examiner’s findings regarding APA (Final Act. 38–39) are undisputed, we
nonetheless find the Examiner’s reliance on Frels to cure APA’s deficiencies
with respect to (1) implementing selected first and second clock types into
respective virtualized logical server clouds simultaneously; and (2) disabling
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

21
the centralized clock in the server clouds such that the first and second
server clouds are synchronized only to their respective clock types is
untenable on this record.
Frels’s system synchronizes a clock via a backplane by comparing
time information received from a clock via the backplane with time
information received from a synchronization interface, where the latter time
information is associated with an external clock. Frels Abstract; ¶¶ 6, 92,
114; Figs. 1A, 5. In one embodiment, backplane clocks can be synchronized
between different devices. Frels ¶ 120; Fig. 6.
The import of this discussion is that device clocks are synchronized to
an external centralized clock. Even assuming, without deciding, that this
functionality implements different clock types in paragraphs 6 and 114 as
the Examiner seems to suggest (see Final Act. 38–39), we fail to see—nor
has the Examiner shown—that the centralized clock in the APA/Frels
system is disabled such that each respective virtualized logical server cloud
is synchronized only to its respective clock type as claimed. If anything,
Frels’s centralized clock remains active to synchronize other clocks. Accord
Appeal Br. 26 (noting that there is no centralized clock that is disabled in
Frels).
We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that clock
types can be switched as the Examiner seems to suggest. See Final Act. 39–
40. Although switching from one type of source clock to another disables
the former source clock, the respective server clouds in the APA/Frels
system would still not be synchronized only to their respective clock types as
claimed, for both clouds’ clocks would still depend on the newly-selected
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

22
centralized source clock. In other words, the centralized clock would still be
enabled in this scenario, albeit a different centralized clock.
To the extent that the Examiner finds otherwise, we disagree. That
the Examiner failed to respond to Appellant’s arguments in this regard as
Appellant indicates (Reply Br. 2) only further undermines the propriety of
the Examiner’s rejection.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 7 and 13 that recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 6, 12, and 18–21 for
similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellant’s other
associated arguments.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS IN THE SIXTH SET
Because the Examiner has not shown that the additional cited prior art
cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent
claims 1, 7, and 13 in the third rejection set, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of (1) dependent claims 4, 10, and 16 over APA,
Frels, and Huang (Final Act. 41–42); and (2) claims 5, 11, and 17 over APA,
Frels, and Muller (Final Act. 43–44) for similar reasons.

Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

23
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)
/Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 7,
12, 13,
18–21
103 APA,
Matson,
Zampetti
1, 6, 7, 12,
13, 18–21
4, 5, 10,
11, 16, 17
103 APA,
Matson,
Zampetti,
Sinha
4, 5, 10,
11, 16, 17
4, 10, 16 103 APA,
Matson,
Zampetti,
Huang
4, 10, 16
5, 11, 17 103 APA,
Matson,
Zampetti,
Muller
5, 11, 17
1, 6, 7,
12, 13,
18–21
103 APA,
Lawson
1, 6, 7, 12,
13, 18–21
4, 10, 16 103 APA,
Lawson,
Huang
4, 10, 16
5, 11, 17 103 APA,
Lawson,
Muller
5, 11, 17
1, 6, 7,
12, 13,
18–21
103 APA,
Chaffee
1, 6, 7, 12,
13, 18–21
4, 10, 16 103 APA,
Chaffee,
Huang
4, 10, 16
5, 11, 17 103 APA,
Chaffee,
Muller
5, 11, 17
Appeal 2019-003793
Application 14/323,607

24
1, 6, 7,
12, 13,
18–21
103 APA, Chen 1, 6, 7, 12,
13, 18–21
4, 10, 16 103 APA, Chen,
Huang
4, 10, 16
5, 11, 17 103 APA, Chen,
Muller
5, 11, 17
1, 6, 7,
12, 13,
18–21
103 APA, Frels 1, 6, 7, 12,
13, 18–21
4, 10, 16 103 APA, Frels,
Huang
4, 10, 16
5, 11, 17 103 APA, Frels,
Muller
5, 11, 17
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–7, 10–
13, 16–21

REVERSED