Ex Parte BlahoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 201410989746 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation