Ex Parte Chakraborty et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 6, 201813274041 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/274,041 10/14/2011 Parag Chakraborty 333850.01/104709.000835 5119 41505 7590 Baker & Hostetler LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION) CIRA CENTRE, 12TH FLOOR 2929 ARCH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2891 EXAMINER YOON, SAE WON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2018 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): u sdocket @ micro soft .com eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PARAG CHAKRABORTY and BRADLEY POST1 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 Technology Center 2600 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to remote computing, and specifically to “delivering a single end user experience to a client from multiple servers.” Title. Appellants disclose “a multi-port client server connection in a remote desktop environment. In an embodiment, the multi-client server connection can decouple client-server connection and client-server input from graphics delivery from the server to the client. Such embodiment provides higher server performance and enables dynamic server resource management.” Abstract. Claims 1,12, and 17 are independent, of which claim 1 represents the claims on appeal:2 1. A system for processing data, comprising: at least one computing device configured to at least: establish a first connection with a client device and a second connection with at least one graphics computing device, the first connection connecting the client device to a remote session allocated to the client device; provide information indicative of the at least one graphics computing device to the client device to enable the client device to establish a third connection to the at least one graphics computing device, the third connection adapted to communicate encoded graphics data to the client device in response to data received from the client device via the first connection; receive data from the client device via the first connection; 2 Appellants argue Examiner error for the rejections of claims 2—20 solely based on the arguments presented for claim 1. App. Br. 9—17. Based on Appellants’ arguments, therefore, claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 2 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 process the received data from the client device with an application executing within a runtime environment of the remote session; and send display calls data issued by the application in response to the received data to the at least one graphics computing device via the second connection, the display calls data used to generate graphics data that is sent by the at least one graphics computing device to the client device via the third connection App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x). Examiner’s Rejections & References Claims 1—5, 7—14, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Urbach (US 8,553,028 Bl; Oct. 8, 2013), Lublin (US 2010/0306381 Al; Dec. 2, 2010), and Abdo (US 2010/0226548 Al; Sept. 9, 2010). Final Act. 3—21. Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Urbach, Lublin, Abdo, and Walkin (US 2006/0098645 Al; May 11, 2006). Final Act. 21—25. Claims 17—19 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Urbach, Lublin, Abdo, and Orady (US 2009/0094365 Al; Apr. 9, 2009). Final Act. 25—29. Claim 20 stands rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Urbach, Lublin, Abdo, Orady, and Walkin. Final Act. 29. ISSUES We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075. In view of 3 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 Appellants’ arguments, the issues are whether the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1— 1) by finding Lublin, in view of Urbach, teaches or suggests “provid[ing] information indicative of at least one graphics computing device to client device to enable the client device to establish a third connection to the at least one graphics computing device,” as recited (App. Br. 10); 2) by finding Urbach teaches or suggests “send[ing] display calls data ... in response to received data to at least one graphics computing device via a second connection,” as recited {id. at 11—12); 3) by “failing] to articulate a reason with rational underpinning” for the proposed combination of teachings from Urbach and Lublin {id. at 12—14); and 4) because modifying the design of Urbach based on the teachings of Lublin as proposed by the Examiner would change Urbach’s principle of operation {id. at 14—16). ANALYSIS Lublin and Information Indicative of a Graphics Computing Device In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Urbach’s disclosure of a virtual world system based on physical servers that implement “remote rendering device servers” teaches a computing device that establishes a first connection with a client device and a second connection with a graphics computing device, as recited, final Act. 3^4 (citing Urbach 3:39-46, 3:49- 52, 6:17—26, 6:53-57, 12:19-25, figs. 1, 3). The Examiner then finds, inter alia, Lublin’s disclosure regarding migration of virtual machines teaches claim 1 ’s requirement to “provide information indicative of the at least one graphics computing device to the client device to enable the client device to establish a third connection to the at least one graphics computing device,” as recited. Id. at 8—10 (citing Lublin || 23, 41—42, figs. 1 A—B). 4 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 Appellants argue the Examiner errs because, “in contrast to Applicant’s information indicative of at least one graphics computing device, Lublin’s migration command does not enable Lublin’s client to establish a connection to Lublin’s client-side resources. Lublin discloses the opposite.” App. Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants argue that “Lublin’s migration command enables the destination host of the migrated VM to establish a connection to Lublin’s client-side resources — not the client.” Id. (citing Lublin H 31, 33, 37). Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive, first, we note claim 1 does not recite or require a limitation of “client-side resource.” The limitation of claim 1 at issue requires “information indicative of the at least one graphics computing device” be provided to the client device for enabling establishment of a “third connection” to a “graphics computing device.” We agree with the Examiner that Lublin, in view of the teachings of Urbach, teach this disputed limitation. As the Examiner responds, Urbach teaches the three different connections recited in claim 1. Ans. 4—5 (citing Urbach 6:17—26, 12:23—28); see also final Act. 3—5. We agree with the Examiner that an artisan of ordinary skill would have understood Urbach teaches (1) a first connection between a “world state” server and a client, (2) a second connection between the world state server and a graphics computing device (“remote rendering device” (RRD) server), and (3) a third connection between the client and the RRD server. See, e.g., Urbach fig. 1, 3:36—52. [W]hat Urbach fails to expressly teach is [the] claimed feature of providing] information indicative of the at least one graphics computing device to the client device to enable the 5 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 client device to establish a third connection to the at least one graphics computing device. Lublin was introduced to address such claim limitation in combination with Urbach. Lublin teaches [the] particular feature of [a] host controller including migration manager which can provide IP address information of particular server ... to a client so that the client can utilize the information to establish connection with the server .... Ans. 5 (citing Lublin Figs. 1A—B, || 20, 23, 34, 41^42). As the Examiner further explains, and we further agree, a skilled artisan would have understood how to use Lublin’s disclosure of migrating virtual servers to migrate Urbach’s RRD servers (“graphics computing devices”) between physical devices. Final Act. 5—7 (citing Lublin || 20, 23, 26, 42). Lublin discloses connecting a client device to a new virtual machine as part of a migration process. See Lublin || 12, 20, 23, 26, 28—37, 41—42, Figs. IB, 3). The skilled artisan would also have understood that when connecting to a new server, the client device must know (i.e., the client device will receive or be provided) network address information for the new server. Thus, when using Lublin’s migration process with Urbach’s RRD servers, to connect the client device to a migrated-to RRD server, the client device is “provide [d] information indicative of the at least one graphics computing device [i.e., RRD server network address information] ... to establish a third connection to the at least one graphics computing device,” as recited. Appellants’ argument that Lublin’s disclosure of enabling the migrated server to access to client-side resources “cannot teach or suggest” providing the claimed “information indicative of at least one graphics computing device,” App. Br. 10-11, is unpersuasive. A skilled artisan would have understood providing the client with network address 6 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 information of the RRD server satisfies the limitation, separate from any issues with server access to client-side resources. Urbach and Display Calls Data In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner also finds Urbach teaches “send[ing] display calls data ... in response to the received data to the at least one graphics computing device via the second connection,” as recited. Final Act. 7 (citing Urbach 3:49-52, 12:23—28, Fig. 3). Appellants argue the Examiner errs in this finding because “the claimed display calls data are issued by an application executing within a runtime environment of a remote session allocated to the client device,” and therefore “the display calls data cannot be issued by the claimed client device.” App. Br. 12. Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. The cited portions of Urbach teach multiple instances of both virtual world and RRD servers for handling of viewport render requests from client devices. See, e.g., Urbach 3:49-52. A skilled artisan would have understood that when a virtual world server communicates information to an RRD server that affects the display of the client device, such information fairly maps to the recited “display calls data.” Sending a viewport render request from a virtual world server to an RRD server in Urbach takes place over the server-to-server link that maps to the recited “second connection.” Thus, Urbach teaches sending the “display calls data” associated with the viewport render request “in response to the received data to the at least one graphics computing device via the second connection,” as recited. The Examiner also finds Abdo, which discloses client-server technology for remote desktop applications, teaches sending display calls 7 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 data “issued by the application,” as recited. Ans. 8—9. Appellants respond by arguing the Examiner’s finding that Abdo sends display calls data from an application running on the client device is inconsistent with the finding that Urbach sends the display calls data from the virtual world server to the RRD server (i.e., not from the client device). Reply Br. 3. Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive, because they do not effectively rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding the combined teachings of Urbach, Lublin, and Abdo. Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, “[a] reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect.” EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis omitted). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In reNievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). Here, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is rendered obvious by the combination of (a) Urbach’s teachings of a client device that interfaces with a virtual world server and RRD server with (b) Lublin’s teachings of server migration with (c) Abdo’s teachings of remote desktop applications. As discussed above, Urbach teaches a client device with a first connection to 8 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 the virtual world server, which in turn has a second connection to an RRD server. As also discussed above, Lublin’s VM server migration disclosure entails informing the client device of the address (information indicative) of the migrated-to RRD server, which enables the migrated-to RRD server to communicate directly with the client device over the recited third connection. Regarding Appellants’ argument that Abdo’s teachings are so dissimilar to Urbach’s teachings that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined them as proposed by the Examiner, we note that “[a]s long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As the Supreme Court explained inKSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007), “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.” Rather, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. The Examiner relies on Abdo’s disclosure of a remote desktop application in a client device to teach claim 1 ’s “remote session” and “an application executing within a runtime environment of the remote session” requirements. Final Act. 10—12 (citing Abdo Tflf 11,21, 25—26, Fig. 2). We agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan, given Urbach’s “client to [virtual] world [] server to RRD [] server” architecture, would have found it obvious to use a remote desktop application disclosed by Abdo. This is 9 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 because, as the Examiner finds, the combination “would allow [virtual] world [] server to generate and host remote session(s) that client(s) can connect to, receive involved data from application included in the remote session, and route the data to appropriate remote rendering device.” Id. at 12 (additionally finding the skilled artisan would have been “motivated to do so to gain well-known and expected benefit of preventing possible data overlap of involved clients by utilizing session for each involved clients”). Appellants do not point to any evidence of record that the combinations would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418—19). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420—21. We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Combining Urbach with Lublin Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “[t]he reasons provided by the Office for combining [Urbach and Fublin] are flawed.” App. Br. 12; see also id. at 13—14 (arguing hindsight and “circular reasoning that 10 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 describes the result of combining Urbach and Lublin instead of a reasoning with some rational underpinning for making that combination”). This argument is unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Lublin’s teachings with Urbach’s teachings as proposed for the following reasons: to gain well-known and expected benefits of providing the client with address information of [the] remote renderer that is capable of performing task that user requests. By [providing] the client with address information of particular remote rendering device, this would allow accurate connection between the client and the particular remote rendering device as the client knows the actual address information of the particular remote rendering device and the client will be able to utilize this address information in future connection with the remote rendering device which will avoid re-figuring out of address information of the particular remote rendering device. Final Act. 9—10; see also Lublin 142 (“The migration command may specify the IP address and the port for the new destination, as well as some other information.”). Appellants do not effectively rebut this finding. Appellants further argue the Examiner’s proposed combination of Urbach with Lublin would not have been obvious because it “changes the principle of operation of Urbach.” App. Br. 14. In particular, Appellants argue that “Urbach’s principle of operation is providing information indicative of a client device to a graphics computing device to enable the graphics computing device to establish a connection to the client device for communicating graphics data,” whereas “Lublin’s principle of operation is providing information indicative of a server device to a client device to enable the client device to establish a connection to the server device.” Id. at 15, 16. According to Appellants, “Urbach’s invention would have to change its principle of operation to provide a client device with information 11 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 indicative of a server device to enable the client device to establish a connection to the server device as taught by Lublin.” Id. at 16. These arguments are also unpersuasive. The Examiner’s combination of teachings does not negate any purpose or principle of Urbach in establishing its original third connection between a client device and an RRD server. Instead, as discussed supra, the Examiner combines a teaching of Lublin—VM server migration—so that when an RRD server of Urbach migrates to a new server, the client device connects to the new server over a new third connection. In the combination, establishing the client device’s “third connection to the at least one graphics computing device” entails both the client device establishing its connection to the new RRD server and the new RRD server establishing its connection to the client device. As also discussed supra, a skilled artisan would have understood this disclosure requires providing the client device with network address information of the new server for the RRD server “to enable the client device to establish a connection to the at least one graphics computing device,” as recited. Thus, we find the added teachings of Lublin do not change the principle of operation of Urbach. Conclusion For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2—20, for which Appellants offer no substantive arguments separate from the arguments for claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1—20. 12 Appeal 2017-007923 Application 13/274,041 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation