Ex Parte Chakraborty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2018

13274041 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2018)

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