Citrix Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2020

14695980 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2020)

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.
14/695,980 04/24/2015 David Alessandro Penry LLOYD CTX1170US(161095.00049) 9229
141874 7590 09/23/2020
Citrix/Fox Rothschild LLP
997 Lenox Drive
Building 3
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2311
EXAMINER
LE, THANH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2432
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2020 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):
ipdocket@foxrothschild.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID ALESSANDRO PENRY LLOYD and
CHRISTOPHER MORGAN MAYERS

________________

Appeal 2019-003476
Application 14/695,980
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, MATTHEW J. McNEILL,
and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1‒21, which are all the claims pending in this
application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

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 CITRIX
SYSTEMS, INC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003476
Application 14/695,980
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to communications between a client
device and a service, and in particular to communications involving an
intermediary device. Spec. ¶¶ 12‒13. Claims 1 and 21 illustrate the appealed
subject matter and read as follows:
1. An appliance, comprising:
a memory storing a set of instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the set of
instructions to cause the appliance to:
acquire a first handshake message from a client
device, wherein the first handshake message is intended
for a service;
provide a second handshake message for the client
device, wherein the second handshake message includes
a first certificate referring to the appliance;
acquire, from the client device, a second certificate
indicating a first function of a connection and a second
function of the connection subsequent to when the client
device determines that the appliance is authorized to
assist with providing a secure connection between the
client device and the service based on results of the client
device’s examination of the first certificate; and
determine, based on the second function, an action
associated with providing the service with the second
certificate indicating the first function.
21. A client device, comprising:
a memory storing a set of instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the set of
instructions to cause the client device to:
provide a handshake message intended for a
service;
acquire a first certificate;
Appeal 2019-003476
Application 14/695,980
3
perform an examination of the first certificate;
if the examination indicates that the first certificate
was provided by the service, provide a second certificate
indicating a first function of the connection to the
service; and
if the examination indicates that the first certificate
was provided by an appliance other than the service,
provide a third certificate indicating the first function of a
connection and a second function of the connection to the
appliance, wherein the second function is configured to
cause the appliance to perform an action associated with
providing the third certificate to the service.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1‒20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yerra (US 2014/0095865 A1; Apr. 3, 2014) and Upp (US
8,584,214 B2; Nov. 12, 2013). Final Act. 3‒7.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yerra, Upp, and Schneider (US 8,769,291 B2; July 1, 2014). Final
Act. 7‒8.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1‒20
The Examiner finds the combination of Yerra and Upp teaches or
suggests:
one or more processors configured to execute the set of
instructions to cause the appliance to: . . . acquire, from the
client device, a second certificate indicating a first function of a
connection and a second function of the connection subsequent
to when the client device determines that the appliance is
authorized to assist with providing a secure connection between
the client device and the service based on results of the client
device’s examination of the first certificate.
Appeal 2019-003476
Application 14/695,980
4
See Final Act. 3‒4. In particular, the Examiner finds Upp teaches a client
device, which the Examiner maps to the claimed “appliance,” that receives a
certificate from an AAA server, which the Examiner maps to the claimed
“client device.” See Ans. 12. The Examiner finds Upp teaches determining
that the certificate is absent from the device certificate trust list (CTL),
which the Examiner maps to the claimed “first function.” See id. The
Examiner finds Upp teaches the client device may receive a CTL update,
which the Examiner maps to the claimed “second function.” See id.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because Yerra and Upp do not
teach or suggest the claimed “acquire . . . a second certificate” step. See
Appeal Br. 12‒14; Reply Br. 3‒4. In particular, Appellant argues the
Examiner errs by interpreting Upp’s client device as an “appliance” and
Upp’s AAA server as a “client,” which Appellant contends is contrary to the
plain meaning of these terms. See Reply Br. 3‒4. Appellant argues Upp
teaches an initial message with a certificate. Id. at 4 (citing Upp Figs. 5‒8).
If the certificate is not trusted, the CTL list is updated to include that
certificate. Id. at 4. Appellant argues Upp is silent regarding a second
certificate, and in particular a second certificate
indicating a first function of a connection and a second function
of the connection subsequent to when the device determines
that the appliance is authorized to assist with providing a secure
connection between the client device and the service based on
results of the client device’s examination of the first certificate.

Id. at 4.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner fails to
explain how Upp teaches a second certificate as claimed. Upp teaches the
client device receives a certificate and attempts to verify that the certificate
is listed in the CTL. Upp 5:15‒19. If the certificate is not listed in the CTL,
Appeal 2019-003476
Application 14/695,980
5
the client device may request a CTL update. Id. at 5:23‒25. The Examiner
finds this update is the claimed “second function,” but fails to explain how
this update is “a second function of the connection subsequent to” the client
device determination that is “based on results of the client device’s
examination of the first certificate.” See Ans. 12. In other words, the
Examiner does not identify any determination based on a different certificate
that could be deemed the “first certificate” as required by the claim.
For these reasons, the Examiner has failed to sufficiently establish that
Yerra and Upp, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the “acquire, from
the client device, a second certificate” limitation.2 We, therefore, do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We
also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 8 and 15,
which recite commensurate subject matter. We also do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2‒7, 9‒14, and 16‒20.
Claim 21
Claim 21 stands rejected as unpatentable over the combination of
Yerra, Upp, and Schneider. The Examiner finds the combination of Yerra
and Upp teaches or suggests all of the limitations except for the limitation
“provide a third certificate indicating the first function of a connection and a
second function of the connection to the appliance, wherein the second
function is configured to cause the appliance to perform an action associated
with providing the third certificate to the service.” See Final Act. 8. The
Examiner finds Schneider teaches this limitation. See id.

2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Appeal 2019-003476
Application 14/695,980
6
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 because the
combination of Yerra, Upp, and Schneider fails to teach “if the examination
indicates that the first certificate was provided by the service, provide a
second certificate indicating a first function of the connection to the
service.” See Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner states
claim 21 is rejected “under the same reason set forth in [the] rejection of
claim 1 by Yerra and Upp.” Final Act. 8. However, the Examiner fails to
explain how Yerra and Upp teach the “second certificate” limitation of claim
21, which is not substantially identical to the corresponding limitation in
claim 1. To the extent the Examiner’s findings regarding Yerra and Upp
teaching the “second certificate” limitation in claim 1 apply to the “second
certificate” limitation in claim 21, we are persuaded of Examiner error for
the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. The Examiner does not find
Schneider cures this deficiency. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of claim 21.

SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1‒20 103 Yerra, Upp 1‒20
21 103 Yerra, Upp,
Schneider
21
Overall
Outcome
1‒21

REVERSED