VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2020

2019003400 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 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.
15/250,871 08/29/2016 Dong Wang C940 1082
152593 7590 09/23/2020
FOUNTAINHEAD/VMWARE-NICIRA
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
UNG, LANNY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2020 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
klhussain@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DONG WANG, YUNFEI SAN, PENG GUO,
and
FELIX YAN
____________________

Appeal 2019-003400
Application 15/250,8711
Technology Center 2100
____________________

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

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–20, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is VMWARE, INC. (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed August 29, 2016,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed May 10, 2018, the Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed November 7, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed January 28, 2019, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
March 26, 2019.
Appeal 2019-003400
Application 15/250,871

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to methods and systems for configuring a
container hosted application by deploying a container engine and a
configuration agent to execute on a machine, deploying a container to
execute on the container engine, and using the container to request and
receive from the configuration agent “configuration information . . . relating
to the user’s configuration of the application.” (Spec. ¶ 4, Title; Abstract.)
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for configuring an application with user
configuration information executing in a container, the method
comprising:
deploying a container engine to execute on a first machine;
deploying a configuration agent to execute on the first
machine;
deploying one or more containers to execute on the
container engine, wherein each container performs operations
including:
the container instantiating at least one
corresponding application to execute in the container;
the container sending to the configuration agent a
configuration request for configuration information
relating to the application, the configuration request
including information that identifies the container,
information that identifies a user associated with the
container, and information that identifies the application;
the container receiving from the configuration agent
configuration information relating to the user’s
configuration of the application; and
the container configuring the application using the
received configuration information.

Appeal 2019-003400
Application 15/250,871

3
(Appeal Br. 17–21 (Claims App.).)

REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1–8 and 10–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Bjorkengren (US 2016/0378525 A1, published Dec. 29, 2016)
(“Bjorkengren”), Chhaparia (US 2016/0026442 A1, published Jan. 28, 2016)
(“Chhaparia”), and Alevoor et al. (US 9,069,607 B1, issued June 30, 2015)
(“Alevoor”). (Final Act. 2–10.)
(2) Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Bjorkengren, Chhaparia, Alevoor, and Shaik et al. (US 2015/0309828 A1,
published Oct. 29, 2015) (“Shaik”). (Final Act. 10–11.)

ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that: Bjorkengren’s
Docker daemon (running scripts on destination computing device 114)
teaches the claimed “container engine” deployed to execute on a first
machine (the destination computing device 114); and Bjorkengren’s
container configuration module 522 (which uses an automated application
deployment tool for configuring a container 120 on destination computing
device 114) teaches the claimed “configuration agent” deployed to execute
on the first machine. (Final Act. 2–3 (citing Bjorkengren ¶¶ 36, 50);
Ans. 14.) The Examiner further finds:
[Bjorkengren’s] computing system[] performs operations
including: . . .
sending to the configuration agent a configuration request
for configuration information relating to the application, (in
response to an indication (request) that the container has been
created and is awaiting checkpoint data, Paragraph 49, lines 1–
7)
Appeal 2019-003400
Application 15/250,871

4
receiving from the configuration agent configuration
information relating to the configuration of the application;
(receiving application checkpoint data from an application
checkpoint database, Paragraph 50, lines 9–14),

as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 3.) Thus, Examiner finds the claimed
“configuration request” (for configuration information relating to the
application) is taught by Bjorkengren’s “indication” transmitted by
0destination computing device 114 to source computing device 102. (See id.
(citing Bjorkengren ¶ 49).) In the Answer, the Examiner finds the claimed
“configuration request” is additionally taught by: Bjorkengren’s
“configuration initialization request . . . [that] is for gathering of
configuration information related to the application that is being
migrated/restored”; and by Bjorkengren’s “continuous monitoring
(requesting) of when the checkpoint data has been received at the migration
management module/container configuration module (configuration agent).”
(Ans. 14 (citing Bjorkengren ¶¶ 47, 49, 53) (emphases added), 16.)
The Examiner acknowledges “Bjorkengren does not explicitly
disclose: wherein each container performs the operations” recited in claim 1,
but asserts Chhaparia teaches “that a container performs similar functions of
the ‘sending’, ‘receiving’ and ‘configuring.’” (Final Act. 3–4 (citing
Chhaparia ¶¶ 25–27); Ans. 20.) The Examiner reasons “[o]ne skilled in the
art would be motivated to combine Chhaparia into Bjorkengren in order to
have a container that automatically synchronizes itself when needed which
could require less user intervention.” (Ans. 21.) We do not agree.
We agree with Appellant that Bjorkengren and Chhaparia, alone or in
combination, fail to teach or suggest a “container sending to the
configuration agent a configuration request for configuration information
Appeal 2019-003400
Application 15/250,871

5
relating to the application,” with “the container receiving from the
configuration agent configuration information relating to the user’s
configuration of the application,” as recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 7–13;
Reply Br. 2–7.) As Appellant explains, none of Bjorkengren’s indication,
configuration initialization request, and monitoring teach the claimed
“configuration request for configuration information relating to the
application” sent from an entity (e.g., container) executing on a first
machine, to a configuration agent on the same (first) machine, as required by
claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 3–6.) For example, Bjorkengren’s
configuration initialization request is not a “configuration request for
configuration information relating to the application [that is to execute in
the container]” as claimed, but is merely a request to configure a container
on destination computing device 114 (the first machine). (Reply Br. 3, 6
(citing Bjorkengren ¶ 47).) Bjorkengren’s configuration initialization
request is also not exchanged between entities on a first machine (as is the
case for claim 1’s configuration request), rather, Bjorkengren’s initialization
request is transmitted from one machine (source computing device 102) to
another machine (destination computing device 114/first machine). (See
Bjorkengren ¶¶ 41 (“the source computing device 102 transmits a
configuration initialization request to the destination computing
device 114”), 47.)
Bjorkengren’s indication (see ¶ 49) and Bjorkengren’s monitoring
(see id.) do not teach the claimed “configuration request,” either. (Appeal
Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 4.) Bjorkengren’s indication is merely a notification
transmitted by destination computing device 114 (first machine) to another
machine (source computing device 102) to indicate that a container has been
Appeal 2019-003400
Application 15/250,871

6
configured. (See Appeal Br. 10–11; Bjorkengren ¶¶ 49, 53.) Bjorkengren’s
monitoring is a recurring check performed by destination computing
device 114 (first device) to “determine[] whether application checkpoint data
(e.g., the application checkpoint data 108) was received from the source
computing device 102.” (See Bjorkengren ¶¶ 45, 49.) Bjorkengren does not
describe the destination computing device 114 as sending a request for
application checkpoint data; instead, destination computing device 114 waits
in a loop (step 812 in Figure 8) for a transmission (of application checkpoint
data) from source computing device 102. (Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 4.)
Thus, Bjorkengren does not teach or suggest an entity (executing on a
first machine) sending to a configuration agent (on the first machine) a
configuration request for configuration information relating to an
application, and responsive to the configuration request, receiving from the
configuration agent configuration information relating to the user’s
configuration of the application, as recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 7–12.)
Chhaparia does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Bjorkengren. (Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 5–6.) Although Chhaparia
describes a software container that fetches and updates dynamic application
files from a cloud server and periodically synchronizes dynamic applications
across a plurality of user devices, Chhaparia does not teach or suggest that
its container sends to a configuration agent (on the same machine as the
container) a configuration request, and in response, receives from the
configuration agent the configuration information as claimed. (See id.;
Chhaparia ¶¶ 18, 25–27.) In addition, the Examiner has not provided an
adequate reason based on rational underpinnings to explain why a skilled
artisan would use Chhaparia’s container in Bjorkengren for performing the
Appeal 2019-003400
Application 15/250,871

7
claimed “container sending” and “container receiving” steps. (Appeal Br.
12–13; Reply Br. 5–7.) Chhaparia does not teach that its container performs
the claimed “sending” and “receiving”; Bjorkengren’s container does not
perform the claimed “sending” and “receiving,” either. (See id.) Instead,
Bjorkengren’s container is (i) passively configured (based on a configuration
initialization request sent by another machine/source computing device 102
to the first machine/destination computing device 114) and (ii) is passively
(without requesting) provided with application checkpoint data (transmitted
by another machine/source computing device 102). (See Bjorkengren ¶¶ 41,
45, 47, 49; Appeal Br. 8–9, 11–12; Reply Br. 6.) As Appellant further
explains, Chhaparia’s teaching of a container fetching files and periodically
synchronizing data “cannot be incorporated into Bjorkengren to obtain the
claim limitation, because Bjorkengren’s [configuration initialization] request
is a request to configure the very container that the Examiner asserts (via
Chhaparia) is sending the request.” (Reply Br. 7.) See In re Chaganti, 554
Fed. Appx. 917, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It is not enough to say that . . . to do
so would ‘have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.’ Such circular
reasoning is not sufficient—more is needed to sustain an obviousness
rejection.”)
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Alevoor and Shaik make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Bjorkengren
and Chhaparia. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2–9
dependent therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 10 and 17, argued for substantially the same
Appeal 2019-003400
Application 15/250,871

8
reasons as claim 1, and claims 11–16 and 18–20 dependent therefrom.
(Appeal Br. 14.)

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–20 103 Bjorkengren,
Chhaparia, Alevoor
1–8, 10–20
9 103 Bjorkengren,
Chhaparia, Alevoor,
Shaik
9
Overall Outcome 1–20

REVERSED