VCE Company, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 13, 2021

2020000557 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2021)

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. 14/132,565 12/18/2013 Todd J. Dolinsky V69138 1080US1/ VCE13-0014 2255 116834 7590 04/13/2021 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/DELL-VCE Attn: IP Docketing P.O. Box 7037 Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 EXAMINER CHEN, WUJI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/13/2021 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): ipdocketing@wbd-us.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TODD J. DOLINSKY, JONATHAN FONTANEZ, NICHOLAS A. HANSEN, and JOSHUA L. BONCZKOWSKI ____________ Appeal 2020-000557 Application 14/132,565 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13–18, and 20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VCE IP Holding Company LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000557 Application 14/132,565 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates “to converged infrastructure computing technology and, more particularly, to a system, method, apparatus, and computer program product for enabling management of a converged infrastructure through a user interface.” Spec. ¶ 1. Converged infrastructure packages multiple information technology (IT) “components, such as servers, data storage devices, networking equipment, and software for IT infrastructure management into a single, optimized computing solution.” Id. ¶ 2. Typically, “management of converged infrastructures” is “problematic for system administrators,” requiring “management of individual components of the converged infrastructure in a piecemeal fashion on a component-by-component basis.” Id. ¶ 3. The present invention endeavors to “enable management of a converged infrastructure in a converged manner as a single logical entity rather than on a component-by-component basis.” Id. ¶ 4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for enabling management of a computing system the method comprising: receiving a command to modify a configuration of a computing system, the computing system comprising a single logical entity including a plurality of computing, network and storage components, wherein the command does not individually identify any of the plurality of computing, network and storage components whose configuration need to be modified; determining, from the received command, a plurality of computing, network and storage components of the computing system whose configurations need to be modified in order to modify the configuration of the computing system in accordance with the command; and Appeal 2020-000557 Application 14/132,565 3 modifying the configuration of each of the plurality of computing, network and storage components whose configurations need to be modified to modify the configuration of the computing system as a single logical entity, in accordance with the command, wherein at least one method operation is performed by a processor. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Helman et al. (US 2010/0042705 A1; published Feb. 18, 2010) (“Helman”). Final Act. 5. Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Helman and Vasisht (US 2004/0133689 A1; published July 8, 2004). Final Act. 8. Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Helman and Hasan et al. (US 2003/0028624 A1; published Feb. 6, 2003) (“Hasan”). Final Act. 10. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Helman and Peters et al. (US 2014/0047085 A1; published Feb. 13, 2014) (“Peters”). Final Act. 11. Claims 8, 9, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Helman and Cort et al. (US 2012/0054681 A1; published Mar. 1, 2012) (“Cort”). Final Act. 12. ANALYSIS Section 102(a)(1) Rejection Independent Claims 1 and 11 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Helman describes Appeal 2020-000557 Application 14/132,565 4 receiving a command to modify a configuration of a computing system, the computing system comprising a single logical entity including a plurality of computing, network and storage components, wherein the command does not individually identify any of the plurality of computing, network and storage components whose configuration need to be modified, as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 11? The Examiner finds that Helman describes “the use of host clusters” that “can be advantageous in performing any operation that is applicable to multiple hosts.” Ans. 12 (citing Helman ¶¶ 17, 36, 40–41); see Final Act. 5– 6 (citing Helman ¶¶ 17, 41). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Helman discloses “control commands that address host clusters,” and “[u]sing such commands, multiple hosts belonging to a given cluster can be configured or otherwise managed in a single instruction,” which teaches a “single command” that identifies “a single logical entity (a host cluster and the storage system)” and the “components whose configurations need to be modified.” Ans. 12. According to the Examiner, Helman’s “control command does not individually identify any of the plurality of computing, network and storage components whose configuration need to be modified,” but it does modify “the configuration of each of the plurality of computing, network and storage components whose configurations need to be modified to modify the configuration of the computing system as a single logical entity.” Id. at 13. Appellant argues that Helman’s logical volume/group of volumes “are not storage components of the host cluster as a single logical entity” and do not describe the claimed “computing system comprising a single logical entity including a plurality of computing, network and storage components.” Appeal 2020-000557 Application 14/132,565 5 Appeal Br. 6; see also id. at 7. Appellant also argues that “Helman’s management commands mapping the host cluster to the logical volume / group of volumes do not modify a configuration of its host cluster (computing system)” and do not describe the claimed “command to modify a configuration of the computing system.” Id. at 6–7; see also id. at 7. Appellant also argues that “Helman’s management commands specify and thereby identify the logical volume/group of volumes (storage)” and do not describe the claimed “command not individually identify[ing] any of the plurality of computing, network and storage components whose configuration need to be modified.” Id. at 7. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Helman generally describes “defining a host cluster” that “includes two or more of the host computers,” and using a “single control instruction, which specifies the host cluster and a configuration operation to be applied to the host computers in the host cluster.” Helman, code (57). As cited by the Examiner, Helman discloses that “a group of two or more hosts is defined as a host cluster and assigned a unique identifier.” Helman ¶ 17. Helman enables “multiple hosts belonging to a given cluster [to] be configured or otherwise managed in a single instruction.” Id. ¶ 40. Examples of these instructions include “configuration operations,” such as “modify[ing] the configuration of the hosts in the addressed cluster.” Id. ¶ 41. Helman explains that the “control commands . . . address host clusters,” and that “[i]nternally to [the] processor . . . each such command is translated to multiple configuration or management operations that are applied to the individual hosts in the cluster.” Id. ¶ 40. Appeal 2020-000557 Application 14/132,565 6 In other words, the sections of Helman cited by the Examiner describe a single instruction addressing a host cluster, which includes multiple host computers. This single instruction modifies the configuration of the hosts in the host cluster, but addresses the host cluster (rather than the individual host computers). The processor then translates the command to determine the operations for the individual hosts in the host cluster. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Helman describes: 1) receiving a command for a computing system that comprises a single logical entity including components, 2) the command is to modify configuration of the computing system, and 3) the command does not individually identify the components, as required by the claim. See Ans. 12– 13; Final Act. 5–7. Appellant’s arguments regarding Helman’s logical volumes do not persuasively address the Examiner’s findings. Appellant has not persuasively explained why Helman’s “host cluster” defining “a group of two or more hosts” fails to teach the claimed “computing system comprising a single logical entity including a plurality of computing, network and storage components” See Helman ¶ 17. Appellant has also not persuasively explained why Helman’s “single instruction” to “modify the configuration of the hosts in the addressed cluster” fails to teach the claimed “receiving a command to modify a configuration of a computing system.” See id. ¶ 41. Appellant has also not persuasively explained why Helman’s “control commands” that “address host clusters” fail to teach the claimed “wherein the command does not individually identify any of the plurality of computing, network and storage components whose configuration need to be modified.” See id. ¶ 40 (emphasis added). Appeal 2020-000557 Application 14/132,565 7 For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner’s § 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. Dependent Claims 7, 10, 17, and 20 Appellant does not separately argue patentability for dependent claims 7, 10, 17, and 20. See Appeal Br. 10. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102(a)(1) rejection of dependent claims 7, 10, 17, and 20. Section 103 Rejections Independent Claim 18 Appellant does not separately argue patentability for independent claim 18. See Appeal Br. 11. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 18. Dependent Claims 3–6, 8, 9, and 13–16 Appellant does not separately argue patentability for dependent claims 3–6, 8, 9, and 13–16. See Appeal Br. 10–11. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of dependent claims 3–6, 8, 9, and 13–16. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–11, 13–18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7, 10, 11, 17, 20 102(a)(1) Helman 1, 7, 10, 11, 17, 20 3, 4, 13, 14 103 Helman, Vasisht 3, 4, 13, 14 5, 15 103 Helman, Hasan 5, 15 6, 16 103 Helman, Peters 6, 16 8, 9, 18 103 Helman, Cort 8, 9, 18 Appeal 2020-000557 Application 14/132,565 8 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome 1, 3–11, 13–18, 20 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f) (2018). AFFIRMED