PTAB

IPR2014-01304

VMware Inc v. Clouding Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Configuration of Dynamic Computing Environments Using a Visual Interface
  • Brief Description: The ’637 patent discloses a system for creating dynamic computing environments from an inventory of allocatable resources. Users interact with a web-based visual interface to select and configure hardware, software, and communication components to automatically build and access a custom environment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Patterson

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patterson (Patent 7,093,005).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Patterson, which incorporates the disclosure of Aziz (Patent 6,779,016) by reference, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Patterson discloses a system for creating "Virtual Server Farms" (VSFs) using a graphical editor that allows users to drag-and-drop icons representing computing elements into a workspace. This graphical representation of the VSF was asserted to be the claimed "visual construction of the computing environment." Petitioner contended that Patterson further discloses the ability to specify hardware, operating systems, and applications (claim 2), activate new devices (claim 3), display pre-defined configurations from a pull-down menu (claim 4), specify constraints like disk size (claim 6), request shared or private storage (claims 7-8), and copy configurations using a "cloning" feature (claim 1).

Ground 2: Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are obvious over Aziz in view of Sanchez-Frank

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 6,779,016) and Sanchez-Frank (Patent 5,394,522).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Aziz discloses the foundational architecture for a dynamic computing environment, including a "Computing Grid" of resources and a "Control Plane" for allocating them into VSFs via a "Virtual Provisioning Console." However, Aziz only broadly suggests a "graphical user interface" without specific visual details. Sanchez-Frank was argued to supply this missing element by disclosing a user-friendly graphical environment for configuring networked computer systems. Sanchez-Frank's interface uses a graphical representation with icons to define network nodes, specify resources, and save/replicate network configurations, thereby teaching the claimed "visual construction" and related user interface features.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine these references for several reasons. First, Aziz explicitly states its system should be implemented with a suitable graphical user interface, creating a known need that Sanchez-Frank's well-known GUI solution would address. Second, adding a user-friendly GUI to a software tool was a common-sense design choice to improve usability, particularly for complex systems like Aziz's. Finally, Petitioner cited the Patterson provisional application, which combines the teachings of Aziz with a graphical editor, as evidence that a POSITA would have been motivated to make this combination.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining a backend server management system with a graphical front-end was a well-understood and predictable implementation in the art.

Ground 3: Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are obvious over Aziz in view of Verissimo

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 6,779,016) and Verissimo (Patent 5,841,654).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative combination to achieve the claimed invention. As in Ground 2, Aziz provides the core system for creating configurable VSFs. Verissimo was argued to provide the specific teachings of a graphical user interface for configuring a system. Verissimo's "System Configurator" provides a graphical interface to configure a Fieldbus network, enabling a user to select devices, view the network configuration in a window, and save the completed configuration file. This graphical configurator was asserted to teach the "visual construction" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have been motivated to augment Aziz's system with Verissimo's graphical configurator to facilitate and streamline the user's selection and configuration of the virtual server farm. The incorporation of a graphical tool was a natural, desirable, and predictable way to improve the interface of the system disclosed in Aziz. Petitioner also noted that this combination of references was previously used as grounds for institution in a related proceeding (IPR2013-00099).
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable integration of a known user interface technology with an existing system architecture to achieve improved usability.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "visual construction": Petitioner proposed this term means "a representation of the combination of hardware, software, and communications components." This construction was argued to be consistent with the figures in the ’637 patent and was noted as having been previously adopted by the Board in a prior review of the same patent.
  • "constraints on the hardware": Petitioner proposed this term means "a limit on system parameters associated with a hardware component," citing a standard dictionary of technical terms. This construction was central to its argument that specifying parameters like hard disk size or CPU count in the prior art met the limitation of claim 6.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 6-9 of the ’637 patent as unpatentable.