Ex Parte Blaho

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2014

10989746 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRUCE ERIC BLAHO
____________________

Appeal 2011-003356
Application 10/989,746
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003356
Application 10/989,746

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Although Appellant acknowledges the Examiner’s Final Rejection of
claims 3, 5, 8, 18, 24, 25, 27-30, 34, 38-40, and 42-45 (App. Br. 1),
Appellant only appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 3, 5, 8, 18, 24, 25, 27-30, 34, and 38 (App. Br. 1 and 5). Because the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board has no jurisdiction as to non-appealed claims,
we will not consider claims 39, 40, and 42-45 as being before us for review.
The Examiner has the authority to cancel the non-appealed claims 39, 40,
and 42-45. See Ex parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential). We have jurisdiction as to claims 3, 5, 8, 18, 24, 25, 27-30,
34, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and method for
executing remote computing sessions wherein at least a portion of the raster
data of the display image for the respective remote computing session is
transmitted to the client device associated with the respective remote
computing session for display of the image (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 30 is exemplary:
30. A method comprising:
establishing a plurality of remote computing sessions on
a computer, wherein each of the plurality of remote computing
sessions has an associated client device that is located remotely
from the computer; and
Appeal 2011-003356
Application 10/989,746

3
for each of the plurality of remote computing sessions:
instantiating, on the computer, a virtual machine for the
respective remote computing session;
executing software on the virtual machine for the
respective remote computing session,
generating a respective display image for the respective
remote computing session that comprises raster data, wherein
the display image for each of the plurality of remote computing
sessions is generated using a graphics accelerator and stored in
a frame buffer associated with the respective virtual machine;
retrieving by the virtual machine associated with the
respective remote computing session at least a portion of the
stored respective display image for the respective remote
computing session; and
separately transmitting, to the client device associated
with the respective remote computing session, at least a portion
of the retrieved raster data of the respective display image for
the respective remote computing session, wherein the client
device associated with the respective remote computing session
displays the at least a portion of the raster data for the
respective remote computing session.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Salesin US 2003/0222890 A1 Dec. 4, 2003
Sciandra US 2005/0108709 A1 May 19, 2005
Araujo US 6,920,502 B2 Jul. 19, 2005
Cowperthwaite US 2005/0210158 A1 Sep. 22, 2005

Tristan Richardson et al., Virtual Network Computing, IEEE Internet
Computing, vol. 2, no. 1, 33-38 (Jan.-Feb. 1998) (“Richardson”).

Appeal 2011-003356
Application 10/989,746

4
Claims 5, 8, 18, 24, 28, 30, 34, 38-40, and 42-45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sciandra in view of Araujo
and Cowperthwaite.
Claims 3, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sciandra in view of Araujo, Cowperthwaite, and
Richardson.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sciandra in view of Araujo, Cowperthwaite, and Salesin.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Sciandra, Araujo, and Cowperthwaite
teaches or would have suggested “retrieving by the virtual machine
associated with the respective remote computing session at least a portion of
the stored respective display image for the respective remote computing
session” (claim 30, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence:
Cowperthwaite
1. Cowperthwaite discloses a method and system for seamlessly
and concurrently allowing multiple Virtual Machines (VMs) on a host
computer to share a graphics device, such as an add-in graphics accelerator
card; wherein, each VM is allocated a portion of the Host’s 100 memory for
use (VM Memory 210 and VM Memory 220) (Fig. 2; Abstract; ¶ [0017]).
Appeal 2011-003356
Application 10/989,746

5
2. An Enhanced Virtual Machine Monitor (VMM) 230 manages
the display output from a select one of the VMs to a display device 170 by
associating a portion of its memory 235 with each VM for storage and
retrieval of execution state information (i.e., the state of the control registers,
graphics page translation tables, frame buffers, etc.) by a Graphics
Accelerator 200 having a graphics display feature (Figs. 1 and 2; Abstract;
¶¶ [0017], [0018], and [0020]).
3. When one VM 110 is currently executing on a Host 100 and it
is time for another VM 120 to begin execution, the graphic state associated
with VM 110 is stored in the VMM memory 235, while the graphic state
associated with VM 120 is retrieved (loaded) from VMM memory 235
(¶ [0018]). The newly retrieved graphics context of VM 120 is loaded on
the Graphics Accelerator 200 for display of the output of VM 120 on display
device 170 and the VM 120 can resume executing graphics commands
within its newly retrieved graphics context (id.).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 5, 8, 18, 24, 28, 30, 34, and 38
At the outset, we note that although the Examiner concludes that
claim 8 is indefinite, the Examiner has not set forth a rejection of claim 8
under § 112, second paragraph for indefiniteness for our review, and we
leave any such determination to the Examiner in the event of further
prosecution. While the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
Appeal 2011-003356
Application 10/989,746

6
As to independent claim 30, Appellant contends that although
Cowperthwaite “teaches that the focus VM renders output to a frame buffer
or overlay buffer,” “the VM rendering output is not the same as the VM
retrieving at least a portion of the display image for transmission to a client”
(App. Br. 9) (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that that the addition of
Sciandra and Araujo “does not cure this deficiency” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that Cowperthwaite discloses “a VM
(Virtual Machine) [that is] execut[ed] on a Host which uses it[s] associated
memory located on the VMM (Virtual Machine Manager) where the
graphics device state is loaded from memory”; wherein, the “VM is
thereafter loaded/current on a Graphics Accelerator and may resume
executing graphics commands within is newly retrieved graphics context”
(Ans. 23). The Examiner notes that graphics device state includes “the state
of control registers, graphics page translation tables, frame buffers, etc.”
(Ans. 23-24). Thus, “the VM retrieves information in order to render a
display image” (Ans. 24).
Cowperthwaite discloses a method and system for allowing multiple
VMs on a host computer to share a graphics device, where each VM is
allocated a portion of the Host’s memory (FF 1). When a first VM is
currently executing on a Host and it is time for a second VM to begin
execution, the graphic state associated with the first VM is stored in the
VMM memory, while the graphic state associated with the second VM is
retrieved (loaded) from VMM memory (FF 3). The newly retrieved
graphics context of VM is loaded on the Graphics Accelerator for display of
the output of VM on display device and the VM can resume executing
graphics commands within its newly retrieved graphics context (id.). We
Appeal 2011-003356
Application 10/989,746

7
find that retrieval of the graphic state associated with the VM comprises a
retrieving of at least a portion of the stored respective display image for the
respective remote computing session by the VM.
Given the aforementioned teachings and suggestions (FF 1-3), we find
that the combination of Sciandra, Araujo, and Cowperthwaite at least
suggests providing the contested claim limitations of claim 30.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sciandra in view of Araujo and
Cowperthwaite. Further, independent claim 8 has similar claim language
and claims 5 (depending from claim 30) and 18,1 which have not been
argued separately, fall with claim 30.
Similarly, Appellant presents separate similar arguments with respect
to independent claims 34 and 38 which include similar claim language with
the distinction that a “virtual machine manager” and a “graphics accelerator”
“retrieve[s] . . . the stored respective display image” (claims 34 and 38).
As noted supra, Cowperthwaite discloses that the newly retrieved
graphics context of VM is loaded on the Graphics Accelerator for display of
the output of VM on display device (FF 3). The VMM manages the display
output from a select one of the VMs to a display device by associating a
portion of its memory with each VM for storage and retrieval of execution
state information (FF 2). We find that the VMM management of the display
output teaches or suggests the step of retrieving of at least a portion of the
stored respective display image for the respective remote computing session
by VMM. We also find the graphics accelerator’s process of loading the

1 We note that claim 18 depends from a canceled claim 16 having similar
claim language.
Appeal 2011-003356
Application 10/989,746

8
graphics context of the VM to be executed comprises the step of retrieving
of at least a portion of the stored respective display image for the respective
remote computing session by the graphics accelerator.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34
and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sciandra in view of Araujo and
Cowperthwaite. Further, claims 24 and 28 (depending from claim 38),
which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 38.
Claims 3, 25, 27, and 29
Appellant argues that claim 3, 25, 27, and 29 are patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to independent
claims 8, 30, 34, and 38, noting that Richardson and Salesin do “not cure the
deficiencies of the combination of” Sciandra, Araujo, and Cowperthwaite
(App. Br. 11 and 12).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combination of Sciandra,
Araujo, and Cowperthwaite at least suggests all the features of independent
claims 8, 30, 34, and 38. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sciandra in view of
Araujo, Cowperthwaite, and Richardson and of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Sciandra in view of Araujo, Cowperthwaite, and Salesin.

Appeal 2011-003356
Application 10/989,746

9
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 8, 18, 24, 25, 27-30, 34, and
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc