AirWatch LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 16, 2021

2020003833 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 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. 15/057,490 03/01/2016 Kalyan Regula W266 (500103-1560) 9710 152577 7590 09/16/2021 Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP (VMW) 3200 Windy Hill Road, SE Suite 1600E Atlanta, GA 30339 EXAMINER HERZOG, MADHURI R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2438 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/16/2021 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): docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com ipadmin@vmware.com uspatents@thomashorstemeyer.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KALYAN REGULA, SHRAVAN SHANTHARAM, NISHITA MANJUNATH, VARUN MURTHY, and JASON ROSZAK Appeal 2020-003833 Application 15/057,490 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES B. ARPIN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, 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 1–4, 6–11, 13–18, and 20–23, which are all of the pending claims. See Final Act. 1–2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the term “Appellant” herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AirWatch, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003833 Application 15/057,490 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The subject matter of the present application pertains to “enrolling a client device and synchronizing user attributes for the client device across multiple directory services.” Spec., Abstr. By way of background, the Specification describes use of “directory services” in networks to store information about network resources (such as “computers, printers, or other shared resources”), and to “enforce policies for these resources (e.g. specifying user password strengths, limiting user access to particular files or computers, as well as other policies).” Id. ¶ 2. The Specification notes that if more than one directory service is utilized, “the management service might require data to be stored in multiple directory services to properly configure the user account.” Id. ¶ 4. The Specification also notes: However, the indication received by the management service when a client device joins the network might omit identifying information for the client device and user account that is shared among the directory services. Because of the omission, after receiving the indication that a client device has joined the network, the management service might be unable to query a single directory service for data necessary to configure the user account. . . . Consequently, there can be a need to leverage multiple directory services to configure user accounts while satisfying system requirements. Id. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitation italicized, is representative: 1. A method, comprising: in an instance in which a user account comprising an identifier is detected as omitted from a list of managed users managed by a management service, searching a first directory service for a plurality of first user attributes based at least in part on the identifier; Appeal 2020-003833 Application 15/057,490 3 receiving the plurality of first user attributes from the first directory service; determining that the plurality of first user attributes includes a global identifier; searching a second directory service for a plurality of second user attributes based at least in part on the global identifier; receiving the plurality of second user attributes from the second directory service; and enrolling a client device in the management service, the management service configured to enforce at least one compliance rule based on the user account being assigned to a group based on one of the plurality of second user attributes. Claims App. 2. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name2 Reference Date Taylor US 2002/0065919 A1 May 30, 2002 Chen US 2003/0149646 A1 Aug. 7, 2003 Richmond US 2003/0152067 A1 Aug. 14, 2003 Sirleaf US 2011/0071852 A1 Mar. 24, 2011 Miller US 8,468,211 B2 June 18, 2013 Wilson US 8,700,569 B1 April 15, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 6, 8–10, 13, 15–17, and 20–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Taylor, Sirleaf, and Richmond. Final Act. 4–9. 2 All references are cited using the first-named inventor. Appeal 2020-003833 Application 15/057,490 4 Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Taylor, Sirleaf, Richmond, and Wilson. Final Act. 4–11. Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Taylor, Sirleaf, Richmond, and Miller. Final Act. 11–12. OPINION With regard to the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Taylor teaches or suggests this limitation. Final Act. 4. Taylor discloses a “peer-to- peer” caching network for “stor[ing] user-generated applications data at multiple nodes in a virtual private network.” Taylor, Abstr. “If a user logs- in to a location which does not store the user’s data, the network automatically causes that data to be downloaded from another node.” Id. The Examiner finds Taylor teaches or suggests the disputed limitation by disclosing [f]or users whose data is present in the partition, but not stored at this particular DB [(“database”)] server, . . . the DB server can use DB Server Column 904 to identify each of the other DB servers which do[] contain the user’s data, and can attempt to obtain the data from the particular DB server which is closer. Id. (citing Taylor ¶¶ 176, 185). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding is in error because “Taylor does not show or suggest ‘an identifier is detected as omitted from a list of managed users managed by a management service,’” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner “misconstrue[s] ‘an instance in which a user account comprising an identifier is detected as omitted,’ as recited in claim 1 . . . Appeal 2020-003833 Application 15/057,490 5 with an instance in which ‘user account information that corresponds to the identifier’ is detected as omitted.” Id. at 7–8. Appellant further argues: In Taylor, a DB server can include a “complete entry for all users whose data is stored at that DB server,” which is “a full entry for User ID Column 901.” . . . For users whose data is “not stored at this particular DB server, the DB server includes only the information from User ID Column 901 and DB Server Column 904,” which does not show or suggest that the User ID Column 901 information is detected as omitted. . . . The DB server “can use DB Server Column 904 to identify each of the other DB Servers which does contain the user's data,” however that paragraph does not suggest that information from User ID Column 901 is detected as omitted. . . . As such, Taylor also does not show or suggest “searching a first directory service . . . based at least in part on” “an identifier [that] is detected as omitted from a list of managed users managed by a management service,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 9 (citations and emphasis omitted) (citing Taylor ¶¶ 176, 185). In the Answer, the Examiner responds based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner is interpreting the limitation “in an instance in which a user account comprising an identifier is detected as omitted from a list of managed users managed by a management service”, as: the user account is detected as omitted from a list of managed users managed by a management service, the user account includes an identifier. Second, the limitation: “searching a first directory service for a plurality of first user attributes based at least in part on the identifier” recites that the first directory service is searched for a plurality of user attributes based on the identifier. Ans. 3–4. Based on these interpretations, the Examiner then concludes, “the given limitation recites that when it is detected that a user account is omitted from a list of managed users managed by a management service, a first Appeal 2020-003833 Application 15/057,490 6 directory service is searched for first user attributes based on an identifier that is part of the user account.” Id. at 4. The Examiner then finds: In light of this interpretation, prior art of record Taylor teaches: . . . In one embodiment, each DB server may include at least a subset of the overall user table for every partition. For users whose data is present in the partition, but not stored at this particular DB server, the DB server includes only the information from User ID Column 901 and DB Server Column 904. . . . If the user tables at all DB servers contains the full set of information for all users, when a user logs-on to a DB server which does not contain that user’s data, the DB server can use DB Server Column 904 to identify each of the other DB servers which does contain the user’s data, and can attempt to obtain the data from the particular DB server which is closest, in terms of time required for the communication, i.e., when it is determined that the user account information is omitted from the DB server that the user logs into, a DB server that includes the user account information is identified from the DB server column 904 based on the user ID and is searched for the user account information. Id. at 4–5 (citation omitted) (citing Taylor ¶ 176, Fig. 9). We are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 and, in particular, the Examiner errs in finding that Taylor teaches searching a first directory service for a plurality of first user attributes after a user account comprising an identifier is detected as omitted from a list of managed users, as recited in claim 1. Taylor discloses providing users access to programs over the Internet, in which a user logs in to a web site with a user name and password, at which point the application runs on a computer located on the service provider’s site. Taylor ¶ 3. The applications require that the user be able to “store and access unique data,” which is stored on the service provider’s servers and is provided to the user when the user logs on. Id. ¶¶ 3, 9. User data may be stored on multiple servers, referred to in Taylor as Appeal 2020-003833 Application 15/057,490 7 “DB Servers.” Id. ¶ 115. Each DB Server maintains information regarding the valid users, including a User ID Column, which has identifiers corresponding to users who have data stored in the database. Id. ¶¶ 171, 176. If a user logs in and the user’s ID is not found, the application returns an error message. Id. ¶ 173. For users whose data is present in the partition for an application, but not stored at a particular DB Server, that server includes information in a User ID Colum and the DB Server Column. Id. ¶ 176. The DB Server Column identifies servers upon which the user’s application data is stored, and when a user logs on to a DB Server that does not contain that user’s application data, the server may use information in the DB Server Column to identify other servers that do contain the user’s application data, and then may attempt to obtain that data from the closest such server. Id. ¶¶ 176, 185. The Examiner finds Taylor teaches a user account is omitted from a list of managed users managed by a management service by disclosing that when a user logs onto a server that does not contain that user’s data, the server uses information from “DB Server Column 904” to identify the nearest server that does contain the user’s data and attempts to obtain the data from that server. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Taylor ¶¶ 176, 185); Ans. 3–5. However, the Examiner’s mapping of the disputed limitation to Taylor is not sufficiently supported. First, the Examiner does not persuasively map a “list of managed users managed by a management service,” as recited in claim 1, to Taylor’s teachings. The Examiner’s findings suggest that the Examiner relies on the User ID Column and the Server DB Column in Taylor to teach a list of managed users. See Final Act. 4 (citing Taylor ¶¶ 176, 185). We agree that Taylor teaches that each DB Server maintains identifying Appeal 2020-003833 Application 15/057,490 8 information regarding valid users, including a User ID Column and a Server DB Column. Taylor ¶ 176. But Taylor does not teach searching for missing information if a valid User ID is not located. To the contrary, Taylor describes that if a user attempts to log in and the user identifier is not located, the system does not attempt to search elsewhere for any user data, but instead returns an error message. Id. ¶ 173. It is only if the user logs in and the user account comprising an identifier is located (e.g., the User ID is located in the User ID Column) that the system then proceeds to locate the user’s application data, either on that server or on a different server. Id. ¶¶ 173, 176, 185. Thus, the Examiner does not persuasively map to Taylor the portion of the limitation reciting “in an instance in which a user account comprising an identifier is detected as omitted from a list of managed users managed by a management service, searching a first directory service . . . .” The Examiner also does not persuasively map to Taylor the remainder of that limitation, which recites “searching a first directory service for a plurality of first user attributes based at least in part on the identifier.” The Examiner’s findings suggest that the Examiner relies on Taylor’s teaching of searching a remote DB Server for the user’s data. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 3–5 The Examiner characterizes such data as the user’s “account information” (see Final Act. 5; Ans. 4–5), but this characterization is not supported by Taylor. Rather, the data that is located from a remote server in Taylor is the user’s application data—that is, data that is generated by the user’s use of an application, and which data is provided to the user when the user logs on. See id. ¶¶ 3, 175. The Examiner does not provide a sufficient basis for finding that such data falls within the scope of “first user attributes,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2020-003833 Application 15/057,490 9 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.3 For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15, which recite limitations commensurate to those of claim 1 (see Claims App. 4, 6) and stand rejected on the same basis (see Final Act. 4–7). The dependent claims (claims 2–4, 6, 7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16–18, and 20–23) stand with their respective independent claims. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 6–11, 13–18, and 20–23. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 6, 8– 10, 13, 15– 17, 20–23 103 Taylor, Sirleaf, Richmond 1–3, 6, 8– 10, 13, 15– 17, 20–23 4, 11, 18 103 Taylor, Sirleaf, Richmond, Wilson 4, 11, 18 7, 14 103 Taylor, Sirleaf, Richmond, Miller 7, 14 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–11, 13–18, 20– 23 REVERSED 3 Because the identified challenge is dispositive, we do not reach the additional challenges to the Examiner’s rejections.