VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2022

2020006410 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 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. 15/628,333 06/20/2017 Nicholas Kushmerick D230 3162 152606 7590 02/03/2022 Olympic Patent Works PLLC 4979 Admiral Street Gig Harbor, WA 98332 EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/03/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte NICHOLAS KUSHMERICK, VARDAN MOVSISYAN, and STEVEN FLANDERS _______________ Appeal 2020-006410 Application 15/628,333 Technology Center 2400 _______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. INVENTION The invention is directed to a system for automatically adjusting resources and monitoring configurations of objects of a distributed 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, VMWARE, INC. is the real party-in- interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006410 Application 15/628,333 2 computing system in response to changes to application programs. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method stored in one or more data-storage devices and executed using one or more processors of a management server computer of a distributed computing system to adjust resources and monitoring configuration of objects in the distributed computing system, the method comprising: using a monitoring tool of the management server computer to identify information recorded in event messages that indicates a change to an object of the distributed computing system: determining infrastructure resource allocation rules for the distributed computing system based on the information; determining monitoring configuration rules for the object and the monitoring tool based on the information; adjusting infrastructure resources of the distributed computing system to accommodate the change to the object based on the resource allocation rules; and adjusting a monitoring configuration of the monitoring tool and the object based on the monitoring configuration rules. EXAMINER’S REJECTION2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Gingell et al. (US 2007/0169049). Final Act. 3-9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 6, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed September 13, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed December 11, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 13, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-006410 Application 15/628,333 3 arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 27. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 is in error as Gingell does not disclose determining resource allocation rules for the distributed computing system and determining monitoring configuration rules for the object and the monitoring tool, based upon information recorded in an event message that indicates a change as claimed. Appeal Br. 11-15. The Examiner finds that Gingell teaches a user interface that receives alerts and equates the claimed event message with Gingell’s alert which is associated with changes in the computing system. Ans. 6 (citing Gingell Fig. 14, ¶¶ 77, 150, 156, 165). Further, the Examiner finds that Gingell teaches determining infrastructure resource allocation rules for the system based upon the alert as it discusses applying rules to determine node replacement if there is a failure (change in the computing system) indicated by an alert. Ans. 7-8 (citing Gingell Fig. 15, ¶¶ 138, 153, 155,). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Gingell teaches determining monitoring configuration rules citing Gingell’s teachings of a monitoring tool and data collectors that are dynamically configured for specific computing environments. Ans. 9 (citing Gingell ¶¶ 155, 158, 171, 181, 187). Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Each of independent claim 1, 10 and 19 recites a limitation directed to identifying in an event message indicating a change to an object in the distributed computing system and two steps of determining rules, one for resource allocation rules (which are used to allocate resources) and the Appeal 2020-006410 Application 15/628,333 4 second for determining monitoring configuration rules (which are used to adjust the monitoring tool). We have reviewed the cited teachings of Gingell and do not find that the Examiner has cited sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Gingell discloses determining a set of monitoring allocation rules as claimed. We disagree with the Examiner’s explanation that: Gingell teaches in paragraph [0155] “SLAI 204 may apply a rule to determine that a node within a high priority tier has failed”. Clearly the citation above explicitly discloses, teaches, and suggest the claim limitation “determining monitoring configuration rules for the object”. Ans. 9. This portion of Gingell discusses using rules to determine that a node has failed (a change in an object in the distributing system) not determining a rule based upon the failure (a change in an object in the distributing system), i.e. the claim is directed to the rule being determined based upon the change, not a rule making a determination.) The other paragraphs of Gingell cited by the Examiner, discuss collection of information and rules for the collection of information, however we do not find that they discuss a determination of the rules based upon a change in an object in the distributing system as claimed. Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has cited sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Gingell discloses all of the limitations of the independent claims and we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 27. CONCLUSION Appeal 2020-006410 Application 15/628,333 5 We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 27. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-27 102 Gingell 1-27 REVERSED