VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2022

2021000643 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2022)

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. 14/702,568 05/01/2015 Jinyuan LI A508.C1 9628 152569 7590 03/22/2022 Patterson + Sheridan, LLP - VMware 24 Greenway Plaza Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 EXAMINER BLACK, LINH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2022 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 psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.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 JINYUAN LI, MURALI VILAYANNUR, and MAYANK RAWAT ___________ Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MINN CHUNG and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 8. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 17, 2020), the Reply Brief (filed November 3, 2020), the Final Action (mailed February 27, 2020) and the Answer (mailed October 1, 2020), for the respective details. 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019) (“The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies VMware, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3. Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 2 We affirm. Introduction According to Appellant, “[o]ne or more embodiments of the present invention provide a network-based method for managing locks in an SFS [(shared file system)]. One feature of the network-based method according to embodiments of the present invention is that it can identify a server for managing locks without any configuration.” Specification ¶ 4. Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. In a system including a group of servers that communicate with each other over a first network and issue storage commands to a shared data storage system over a second network, a method of managing locks of files stored in the shared data storage system using a master lock that includes a data field for storing an address of one of the servers in the group to identify such server as a current server for managing the locks of files stored in the shared data storage system, said method comprising: at a first server of the group, receiving a request to update a particular file stored in the shared data storage system from an application executing within the first server; determining, by the first server, whether an address of another server in the group is stored in the data field of the master lock; if the data field of the master lock does not contain an address of another server in the group, updating the data field of 3 Appellant does not argue independent claims 1, 8, or 15 individually. See Appeal Brief 13 (“Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 and therefore the Examiner has also failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 8 and 15.”). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 3 the master lock to store an address of the first server and obtaining a lock to the particular file; if the data field of the master lock does contain the address of another server in the group, communicating with said another server over the first network using the address, a request to obtain the lock to the particular file; and after the lock to the particular file is obtained, performing an input-output operation on the particular file to fulfill the request to update the particular file. Appeal Brief 15 (Claims Appendix). References (Reference citation is to the first named inventor only.) Name Reference Date Scales US 7,849,098 B1 December 7, 2010 Preslan US 2009/0119304 A1 May 7, 2009 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scales and Preslan. Final Action 6-12. ANALYSIS Appellant argues, “the relevant inquiry is not whether the art simply teaches that a communication occurs with another server over any network using an address to request to obtain a lock to a file.” Appeal Brief 9. Appellant contends, “[r]ather, the relevant inquiry is whether the art teaches that a communication occurs with another server over a particular network (i.e., the first network and not the second network) using an address stored in the data field of a master lock to obtain a lock to the file.” Appeal Brief 9. Appellant contends that the combination of the prior art fails to teach such a feature. Appeal Brief 9. Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 4 Appellant’s Figure 1 is reproduced below: The computer system configuration of Figure 1 includes multiple servers l00A to 100N, each of which is connected to storage area network (SAN) 105 and networked to one another through local area network (LAN) 103. Operating systems 110A and 110B on servers 100A and 100B interact with an SFS 115 that resides on a data storage unit (DSU) 120 accessible through SAN 105. Specification ¶ 16. Scales’ Prior Art Figure 1B is reproduced below: Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 5 FIG. 1B illustrates a computer system that implements a prior art distributed file system. In this system, multiple servers access a common file system through a data storage network, and they communicate locking information with each other using a separate computer network. Scales column 2, lines 61-65. Scales’ prior art discloses a shared file storage system having servers (10, 12, 18) that communicate with each other over a first network (LAN 20). Scales column 2, lines 65-67 (“FIG. 1B shows the same plurality of servers 10, 12 ... 18 connected together through the same local area network 20.”), column 4, lines 19-22 (“Thus, computer systems that use a distributed file system such as the one illustrated in FIG. 1B typically also include a separate network that may be used by the servers 10, 12, and 18 to communicate with each other. FIG. 1B shows a separate LAN 20 that is generally used for this purpose.”); see Final Action 6. Scales’ prior art further discloses a system where the servers communicate with shared data storage over a second network: Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 6 Each of the servers 10, 12 and 18 may use the data storage network 32 to access the file system 41 in the data storage unit 40. Each of the servers 10, 12 and 18 may have full access to the file system 41, including mounting the file system, reading and modifying configuration data for the file system, and reading and writing file data within the file system. Scales column 3, lines 51-56. In regard to managing the locks of files within the shared data storage system, Scales’ prior art discloses that the exchange of locking information restricts the servers’ abilities to access the file system 41 within the data storage unit 40 on the distributed file system shown in Figure 1B. Scales column 3, lines 57-63. Scales further describes the locking method: These distributed file systems require that the servers 10, 12 and 18 exchange locking information to ensure that they do not access the file system 41 in conflicting manners. For example, a first file in the file system 41 may have a first lock associated therewith. One of the servers 10, 12 and 18 may be designated as a master server with respect to this first lock. Thus, suppose the server 12 is designated as the master server with respect to the first lock and that the server 10 desires to access the first file. The server 10 must communicate with the server 12 and request the first lock. The server 12 must then communicate with the server 10 to grant it the first lock before the server 10 may access the first file. Thus, for such a distributed file system to work, there must be some means of communication between the servers 10, 12, and 18. Scales column 4, lines 1-15 (underlined emphasis added). Nonetheless, Scales states that, “[i]n many situations, a system such as the system of FIG.1B is not desirable for various reasons.” Scales column 4, lines 53-54; see column 4, lines 54-67 (e.g., “[I]t may not be desirable to require a second network such as the LAN 20 to enable the servers 10, 12 and 18 to communicate with each other to access the data storage unit 40. Even if each of the servers 10, 12 and 18 is connected to some other Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 7 computer network, it may not be desirable to ensure that they are all connected to the same computer network. . . . ”), see also Scales column 5, lines 1-9. Scales further states, “[w]hat is needed is a distributed file system that enables multiple computing entities to have concurrent access to a data storage unit, without having to go through a file server, and without all of the complexity, expense and inefficiencies of existing distributed file systems.” Scales column 5, lines 10-14. Scales’ invention is shown in Figures 2 and 3 reproduced below: The system of FIG. 2 includes the servers 10, 12 . . . 18 and the data storage unit 40 of FIGS. 1A and 1B. The data storage unit 40 includes a file system 42, which may generally be the same as the file system 41 [of Figure 1B], except for the addition of certain specific locking information . . . . Scales column 6, lines 27-31 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 8 [T]he file system 42A [of Figure 3 above] includes a file system lock 44, which includes an owner data field 45A and a time data field 45B. The owner data field 45A may be a unit of data, such as a byte, a word, etc., that is used to identify a computing entity that owns or possesses the lock 44. Scales column 7, lines 45-50. Scales discloses: Possessing the lock 44 gives a computing entity exclusive access to the configuration data of the file system 42A. The owner data field 45A may contain zero or some other special value to indicate that no computing entity currently owns the lock, or it may contain an identification (ID) value of one of the computing entities to indicate that the respective computing entity currently owns the lock. Scales column 7, lines 50-56. Scales further discloses that each of the servers 10, 12, and 18 may be assigned a unique ID value that could be inserted into the owner data field 45 where the ID values could be determined for each server by using the server’s IP address. See Scales column 7, lines 57-65; see also Final Action 9. Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 9 Claim 1 (with emphasis added) recites: if the data field of the master lock does not contain an address of another server in the group, updating the data field of the master lock to store an address of the first server and obtaining a lock to the particular file; if the data field of the master lock does contain the address of another server in the group, communicating with said another server over the first network using the address, a request to obtain the lock to the particular file. According to claim 1, if the data field of the master lock does not contain an address of another server in the group, then the subsequent step where the data field of the master lock contains an address of another server will not be performed. Claim 1 recites “if” conditions that are conditionally performed in a mutually exclusive manner (or never performed), we therefore find the Board’s guidance of Ex parte Schulhauser is controlling. Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3, 4 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding “[g]iven the language recited in the remaining steps of claim 1, the remaining steps only need to be reached if the determining step is reached. . . the remaining steps of claim 1 need not be performed in the method as recited”; “[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the remaining method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”). Consequently, because the claim limitation regarding the master lock’s data field containing the address of group is conditional, the Examiner does not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the claim limitation. See Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3, 4. Note, claim 1 recites at the beginning of the preamble, “[i]n a system including a group of servers . . .”; the preamble further recites “a method of Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 10 managing locks of files” and the preamble recites at the conclusion “said method comprising.” Accordingly, claim 1 is a method claim and not a system claim. This distinction is important because as articulated by the Board: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. This interpretation of the system claim differs from the method claim because the structure (i.e., a processor programmed to perform an algorithm for carrying out the recited function should the recited condition be met) is present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *7. The Examiner determines that, “Scales does not explicitly teach communicating with said another server over the first network using the address, a request to obtain the lock to the particular file; and after the lock to the particular file is obtained, performing an input-output operation on the particular file to fulfill the request to update the particular file.” Final Action 9-10. Appellant agrees with the Examiner’s determination: “[A]s stated by the Examiner, Scales does not teach to use such an IP address of the computing entity in the file system lock 44 for ‘communicating with said another server over the first network using the address, a request to obtain the lock to the particular file’ as required by claim 1.” Appeal Brief 9 (quoting Final Action 9-10). Nonetheless, the use of addresses to locate storage and/or other devices on the internet or network is well known in the technology. As discussed above, Scales discloses in the prior art that the servers (10, 12, and 18) exchange locking or access information so they do not access the file Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 11 system 41 in conflicting manners. See Scales column 4, lines 1-4. Scales further discloses that when one of the servers want to access the file system, the servers must communicate with the master server to request the lock or access to the file system. See Scales column 4, lines 6-15. Also, a server is regarded as the master server with respect to controlling the first lock of the file in the file system. See Scales column 4, lines 6-8. It would have been obvious to an artisan to use addresses to locate the servers and storage system within Scales’ prior art because Scales discloses in the prior art that the servers exchange information with one another, as well as, identify the current master server of the file system. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see also Scales column 4, lines 1-15. Scales’ prior art servers would not be able to communicate with one another nor be able to determine the identity of the master server if they could not locate each other over the network by using their unique addresses. Additionally, Scales acknowledges using addresses to identify devices within a network. See Scales column 7, lines 57-65. The Examiner further finds that Preslan addresses Scales’ alleged deficiency because Preslan uses addresses to identify elements within a network. See Final Action 10 (citing e.g. Preslan ¶¶ 20 (“In the preferred embodiment, disk servers 150 are connected to the one or more physical disks (not shown) and operate as a single distributed disk server layer 155 having one or more address spaces.”), 68-69). Appellant contends that “[n]owhere in para. 19-21 does Preslan indicate that any specific address is Appeal 2021-000643 Application 14/702,568 12 used to communicate with another server over a network, let alone an address stored in the data field of a master lock.” Appeal Brief 11. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because, as we discussed above, obviousness manifests in the “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. As we also discussed above, it would have been obvious in view of the cited art to use addresses to locate elements within a network environment. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of claims 1-20, not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 13. CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 103(a) Scales, Preslan 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED