Nicira, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 17, 2022

2021000124 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 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. 15/384,129 12/19/2016 Kaushal BANSAL N359 5358 152569 7590 02/17/2022 Patterson + Sheridan, LLP - VMware 24 Greenway Plaza Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 EXAMINER WOLDEMARIAM, NEGA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2433 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2022 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 KAUSHAL BANSAL and UDAY MASUREKAR Appeal 2021-000124 Application 15/384,129 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, BETH Z. SHAW, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 9, and 11-17.2 Claims 7, 8, 10, 19, and 20 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Nicira, Inc. and VMware, Inc. Br. 3. 2 Final Act. 1; see also Ans. 3 (withdrawing the rejection of dependent claims 6 and 18 and stating claims 6 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim). Appeal 2021-000124 Application 15/384,129 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to native tag-based configuration for workloads in a virtual computing environment. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of configuring a virtual computing instance for execution in a virtual computing environment, comprising: storing multiple policies, each defining one or more security or operational parameters for virtual computing instances, the security or operational parameters comprising one or more of: load balancing configuration parameters; or network address translation configuration parameters; associating at least one tag to one or more of the multiple policies such that the tags, when applied to a virtual computing instance, identify a set of the policies to apply to the virtual computing instance; receiving a request to configure a virtual computing instance being deployed, the request including information identifying a template, the template specifying a first set of the tags associated to the policies; responsive to the request, retrieving policies among the stored multiple policies that are associated with same tags as tags specified in the identified template; generating configuration parameters for data path components in a host machine of the virtual computing instance and for data path components of the virtual computing instance based on the retrieved policies; and transmitting the generated configuration parameters to the host machine for the host machine to configure the security or operational parameters of the virtual computing instance therewith. Appeal 2021-000124 Application 15/384,129 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sood US 2016/0226913 A1 Aug. 4, 2016 Ryland US 2015/0163158 June 11, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1-5, 9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sood and Ryland. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3 (withdrawing rejection of dependent claims 6 and 18). OPINION Appellant argues that neither Sood nor Ryland discloses the claimed “tags” being associated to policies “comprising one or more of: load balancing configuration parameters; or network address translation configuration parameters” such that the tags, “when applied to a virtual computing instance, identify a set of the policies to apply to the virtual computing instance,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly in independent claims 9 and 14. Br. 9. In response to Appellant’s arguments (see Br. 8-9), the Answer provides additional findings, analysis, and explanation in support of the Examiner’s finding that Ryland and Sood teach these disputed elements. See Ans. 3-4 (citing Ryland ¶¶ 31, 105, 43-50, 96-99, 109-11, Fig. 10). Appellant does not respond to these findings, and consequently, we are not persuaded of error in them. Appellant also argues that Ryland does not teach “receiving a request to configure a virtual computing instance being deployed, the request Appeal 2021-000124 Application 15/384,129 4 including information identifying a template, the template specifying a first set of the tags associated to the policies,” as recited in claims 1, 9, and 14. Br. 10. In particular, Appellant argues that Figures 4A-4B of Ryland depict examples of “policies,” which are “not shown as associated with a set of multiple tags” and therefore cannot teach the claimed “template,” let alone the “template specifying a first set of the tags associated to the policies.” Id. Appellant provides insufficient evidence that the Specification or claims limit “template” in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Ryland’s teachings in paragraph 99 and Figures 4A and 4B. See Ans. 4-5 (citing Ryland ¶ 99, Figs. 4A-4B). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 14. Regarding dependent claims 5 and 17, Appellant argues that Sood does not teach “wherein the request further includes a second tag not specified in the template.” Br. 10-11. In particular, Appellant argues that the cited portion of Sood does not mention a template, whether or not the tag is specified in a “template,” or “wherein the request further includes a second tag not specified in the template.” Id. However, as the Examiner explains, Ryland is used to teach templates (see Ans. 4, citing Ryland Figures 4A-5B, ¶ 99), and Sood teaches that multiple usages with the security architecture can be uniquely identified with a unique usage identifier. Ans. 5. Moreover, in response to Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner provides additional findings, analysis, and explanation in the Answer. Id. For example, the Examiner finds that Ryland discloses one or more user-defined metadata tags in paragraph 85. Id. Appellant does not respond to these findings, and consequently, we are not persuaded of error in them. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 17. We also Appeal 2021-000124 Application 15/384,129 5 sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2-4, 11-13, 15, and 16, which are not argued separately with particularity. See Br. 10-12. CONCLUSION We affirm the rejections of claims 1-5, 9, and 11-17. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 9, 11-17 103 Sood, Ryland 1-5, 9, 11-17 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED