Ex Parte KIMPTON et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 2019

13556013 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/556,013 07/23/2012 152569 7590 03/01/2019 Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - VMware 24 Greenway Plaza Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Andrew KIMPTON 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. A863 9404 EXAMINER SUN,LIP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2143 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2019 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): psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com ipadmin@vmware.com vmware_admin@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW KIMPTON, JONATHAN CLARK, and SAREL KOBUS JOOSTE Appeal2018-006804 Application 13/556,013 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to finally reject claims 1, 13-16, 26, and 28-36. Claims 2-12, 17-25, and 27 have been canceled. See App. Br. 14--17 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is VMware, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-006804 Application 13/556,013 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to "providing access via a Web client (e.g., a standalone Web browser, a Web-enabled component of a larger application, or the like) to an application executing on a remote computing system." Spec. ,r 10. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A method in a host computing system for providing access via a remote Web client to applications on the host computing system, the Web client executing on a client device having a display device, the method comprising: providing a uniform resource identifier that identifies an application executing on the host computing system, the host computing system including a display buffer for storing an output graphical user interface generated by the application; receiving a request to access the application, the request received from the remote Web client and including the uniform resource identifier; and in response to receiving the request to access the application, executing the application on the host computing system, storing an output graphical user interface ( GUI) generated upon execution of the application in the display buffer, and transmitting the output GUI stored in the display buffer to the remote Web client; receiving from the remote Web client inputs made with respect to GUI transmitted to the remote Web client; and in response to receiving the inputs, delivering the inputs to the application, updating the output GUI stored in the display buffer as a state of the application changes in response to the inputs, and transmitting to the remote Web client update data that reflects changes in the output GUI stored in the display buffer. 2 Appeal2018-006804 Application 13/556,013 Rejections Claims 1, 13, 15, 16, 30, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gertzen (US 2006/0265662 Al; published Nov. 23, 2006) and Hobbs (US 8,453,148 Bl; issued May 28, 2013). Final Act. 2-10. Claims 26, 34, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gertzen, Hobbs, and Nancke-Krogh (US 2012/0054640 Al; published Mar. 1, 2012). Final Act. 10-11. Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gertzen, Hobbs, and Jorgenson (US 2002/0104022 Al; published Aug. 1, 2002). Final Act. 12-13. Claims 14 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gertzen, Hobbs, and Saul et al. (US 2009/0282359 Al; published Nov. 12, 2009) ("Saul"). Final Act. 13-15. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gertzen, Hobbs, Nancke-Krogh, and Jorgenson. Final Act. 15. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gertzen, Hobbs, Nancke-Krogh, and Saul. Final Act. 15. ANALYSIS Appellants contend the combination of Gertzen and Hobbs fails to teach or suggest "executing the application on the host computing system, storing an output graphical user interface (GUI) generated upon execution of 3 Appeal2018-006804 Application 13/556,013 the application in the display buffer, and transmitting the output GUI stored in the display buffer to the remote Web client," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner finds Gertzen' s skeleton HTML page corresponds to the claimed GUI. Ans. 17. The Examiner finds Gertzen teaches "that the application logic 26 ( residing on server 14 of Fig. 1) uses commands from a user interface component library 30 (residing on server 14 of Fig. 1) to construct and present all aspects of a GUI that is presented to the user of the application 24 at the client 12," therefore, Gertzen teaches that the GUI is generated at the server (e.g., host computing system). Ans. 17 (citing Gertzen Fig. 1; ,r 24). The Examiner further finds Gertzen teaches that upon receiving an initial request from the client, the server initiates a new instance of an application and returns a simple skeleton HTML page to the client for generating a GUI for display to the user of the client. Ans. 1 7-18 ( citing Gertzen ,r 25). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes Gertzen teaches or suggests executing an application on a host computing system, storing an output GUI generated upon execution of the application in a buffer, and transmitting the output GUI stored in the buffer to a remote Web client, as required by claim 1. See Ans. 17-18. The Examiner finds Hobbs teaches a host computing system that includes a display buffer for storing an output graphical user interface. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Hobbs Fig. 1; 3:43-53). The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Gertzen and Hobbs "for the purpose of providing a method and system for effectively communicating a plurality 4 Appeal2018-006804 Application 13/556,013 of desktop images in a virtualized environment to a plurality of remote endpoints, as taught by Hobbs." Final Act. 7-8. Appellants argue Gertzen teaches that the GUI is generated at the web client and, therefore, does not teach storing an output GUI in a display buffer and transmitting the stored, output GUI to a remote Web client, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 9. According to Appellants, Gertzen teaches "a user interface component library 30 at the server includes commands necessary to execute appropriate support scripts 48 to construct the GUis." Reply Br. 2 (citing Gertzen ,r 24). Appellants argue Gertzen teaches "[s]upport scripts 48, as illustrated in Figure 1 [ of Gertzen ], reside at the client. Thus, it is these scripts 48 at the client that generate the GUis." Id. We find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Gertzen teaches: [ A ]fter sending an initial HTTP request to the server 14 for a particular application 24, the client 12 receives from the server 14 a simple web page framework, a number of support scripts 48, and instructions to execute particular ones of these support scripts 48 to create an initial GUI ( or GUis) for display to a user of the client 12. Therefore, the server 14 does not generate an HTML page that includes all the necessary HTML code to generate a GUI, but rather sends a skeleton HTML page with appropriate scripts that the client 12 may run itself to create the GUI. Gertzen ,r 26 (emphasis added). The Examiner's findings fail to explain how transmitting a skeleton HTML page with appropriate support scripts that a client may run to create a GUI, as taught by Gertzen, teaches or suggests that the server ( e.g., a host computing system) stores and transmits an output GUI, as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred. 5 Appeal2018-006804 Application 13/556,013 For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1; independent claim 16, which recites corresponding limitations; and claims 13, 15, 30, and 32, which depend from claims 1 and 16. Independent claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based on Gertzen, Hobbs, and Nancke-Krogh. Final Act. 10. Claim 26 recites limitations corresponding to the limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1. The Examiner has not established, on this record, that the teachings ofNancke-Krogh cure the deficiencies of Gertzen and Hobbs as set forth above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 26 for the reasons discussed supra. Each of claims 14, 28, 29, 31, and 33-36 depends, directly or indirectly, from one of independent claims 1, 16, and 26. The Examiner has not established, on this record, that the secondary references relied on in rejecting these claims cure the deficiencies of Gertzen and Hobbs as set forth above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejections of claims 14, 28, 29, 31, and 33-36 for the reasons discussed supra. We do not reach Appellants' further allegations of error because we find the issue discussed above to be dispositive of the rejection of all the pending claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 13-16, 26, and 28-36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 6