Ex Parte London et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2017

13733753 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)

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.
13/733,753 01/03/2013 Kevin S. London 327993.02/104709.000951 1003
41505 7590
Baker & Hostetler LLP (MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
CIRA CENTRE, 12TH FLOOR
2929 ARCH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
HAGOS, EYOB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2018 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 KEVIN S. LONDON, TRAVIS M. HOWE,
IDO BEN-SHACHAR, RUIQUING ZHU, and
ERSEV SAMIM ERDOGAN
Appeal 2017-003873
Application 13/733,753
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—12, 14, 15, 17—19, and 21.3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed August 21,
2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 11, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 3, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed January 3, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Applicant is the Appellant, Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claims 6, 13, 16, and 20 are canceled. Final Act. 1.
Appeal 2017-003873
Application 13/733,753
The subject matter on appeal relates to systems, methods, and
computer-readable media that are adapted to connect a client computing
device to one of a plurality of virtual machines executing on a plurality of
servers. Spec. 15.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A method, comprising:
enumerating a set of one or more user groups that a user
account is a member of using a security identifier that
authenticates the user account to a web access server, the security
identifier associated with a request for available resources;
in response to authenticating the user account, querying one
or more remote desktop session hosts by the web access server
to obtain an enumerated set of resources associated with a
plurality of applications, the resources comprising information
for connecting to the plurality of applications;
determining based on a collective set of permissions of the
one or more user groups of the set of one or more user groups
that the user account should be granted access to one or more
first applications in the plurality of applications and should be
denied access to one or more second applications in the plurality
of applications;
in response to determining that the user account should be
granted access to the one or more first applications and should be
denied access to the one or more second applications,
aggregating the first applications deployed on the one or more
remote desktop session hosts into an aggregated list and omitting
information about each of the second applications; and
returning the aggregated list to a computer of the user
account.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2017-003873
Application 13/733,753
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) on appeal:
Rejection 1: Claims 1—5, 7—12, 14, 15, and 17—19 as unpatentable
over Schneider et al. (US 6,408,336 Bl, issued June 18, 2002) (“Schneider”)
in view of Brockway et al. (US 2005/0125530 Al, published June 9, 2005)
(“Brockway”), Chinta et al. (US 2010/0281102 Al, published November 4,
2010) (“Chinta”), and Croft et al. (US 2007/0180493 Al, published
August 2, 2007) (“Croft”) (Final Act. 1—8); and
Rejection 2: Claim 21 as unpatentable over Schneider in view of
Brockway, Chinta, Croft, and Fitzgerald et al. (US 2007/0136798 Al,
published June 14, 2007) (“Fitzgerald”) (Final Act. 8—9).
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues the claims as a group. See generally Appeal Br. 8—
14. Appellant does not present separate substantive arguments for the
patentability of separately rejected claim 21. See id. Consequently, we
confine our discussion to claim 1, and the remaining claims on appeal will
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellant’s contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant’s
claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the
Final Office Action and Answer. We add the following.
3
Appeal 2017-003873
Application 13/733,753
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds, and Appellant does not
dispute, that Schneider discloses the limitations enumerating a set of one or
more user groups that a user member is a member of using a security
identifier that authenticates the user account to a web server, the security
identifier associated with a request for available resources. Compare Ans. 3
(citing Schneider Abstract, 9:53—10:51, 27:63—28:40) (disclosing when a
web server receives a request from a user for available resources and after it
authenticates the user account, the user may access the available resources
according to defined access policies for the user sets that the user belongs to.
Access is permitted or denied according to access polices which define
access in terms of the user groups and available resources, i.e., in response to
authenticating the user account obtain enumerated set of resources), with
Appeal Br. 8—10, and Reply Br. 1—6.
The Examiner finds that Brockway teaches “querying one or more
remote desktop session hosts by the web access server to obtain an
enumerated set of resources associated with a plurality of applications, the
resources comprising information for connecting to the plurality of
applications,” in response to authenticating the user account. Ans. 4—5
(citing Brockway, Fig. 1 (items 106, 114, 130, 134—1, 126, 128), 25, 27—
29, 31, 32). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Brockway discloses RAP
Web server 114 (i.e., web access server) that includes RAP Web service
(RWS) 130 and SMS accessor 134-1. Ans. 4; Brockway, Fig. 1, || 27—29.
RWS 130 receives a discovery request 132 from a remote client device 106.
Brockway 127. Responsive to receiving discovery request 132, RWS 130
interfaces with each of multiple possible intranet remote application
information source accessor modules 134 (e.g., SMS accessor 134-1) to
4
Appeal 2017-003873
Application 13/733,753
generate an aggregate list of discovered remote applications. Id. 129. The
SMS accessor 134-1 sends get applications request 138 to SMS server 128
(i.e., one or more remote desktop session hosts) that include database 126.
Id. 25, 31. Responsive to receiving get application request 138, SMS
server 128 determine whether the user of remote client 106 is associated
with any applications deployed within the domain of SMS server 128. Id.
131. If so, SMS server 128 sends get application response 140 identifying
the associated applications and their respective installation points back to
SMS accessor 134-1, which in turn, returns response 140 to RWS 130. Id.
The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to combine Brockway’s teachings with Schneider’s system to
present a merged view of remote application shortcuts from multiple
providers to users, thereby simplifying the remote client’s experience when
accessing applications. Final Act. 4; Brockway 114.
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Chinta
discloses granting access to applications for which the user is authorized.
Compare Final Act. 4 (citing Chinta102, 111), with Appeal Br. 8—10, and
Reply Br. 1—6. The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to incorporate Chinta’s teaching of filter applications
with the system in Schneider and Brockway in order to display only certain
applications that the users are authorized to access. Final Act. 4—5.
The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that Croft
discloses determining that the user account should be granted access to one
or more first applications in the plurality of applications and should be
denied access to one or more second applications in the plurality of
applications. Compare Final Act. 5 (citing Chinta 17, 221, 1132), with
5
Appeal 2017-003873
Application 13/733,753
Appeal Br. 8—10, and Reply Br. 1—6. The Examiner determines that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine Croft’s teaching of
granting or denying access to one or more first and second applications in
the plurality of applications with the system in Schneider, Brockway, and
Chinta to allow or deny users access to different applications. Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Schneider, Brockway, Chinta, and Croft does not teach or suggest “querying
one or more remote desktop session hosts by a web access server” in
response to authenticating the user account, where the user account is
authenticated using a security identifier associated with a request for
available resources. Appeal Br. 8—9.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Brockway
teaches a system where RAP Web server 114 (i.e., web access server),
which includes RAP Web service (RWS) 130, receives a request (i.e.,
discovery request 132) from remote client device 106 and the RAP Web
Server 114 sends a get applications request 138 to SMS server 128 (i.e., one
or more remote desktop session hosts) in response to authenticating a user
account. Brockway 27, 31, Fig. 1; see also id. 128 (disclosing that RAP
Web server 114, which includes RWS 130, utilizes an Internet Information
Server for services such as authentication). SMS server 128 sends a
response identifying the associated applications and their respective
installation points back to RAP Web server 114. Id. 131. Thus, a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that
Brockway teaches “in response to authenticating the user account, querying
one or more remote desktop session hosts by the web access server to obtain
an enumerated set of resources associated with a plurality of applications,
6
Appeal 2017-003873
Application 13/733,753
the resources comprising information for connecting to the plurality of
applications,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues that because Brockway’s system authenticates the
user account to the private network and not to the RAP Web server,
Brockway does not teach authenticating a user account to a web access
server. Appeal Br. 10.
Brockway teaches RAP Web server 114 (i.e., web access server)
includes RAP Web service (RWS) 130. Brockway 127. Brockway further
teaches that RWS 130 utilizes Internet Information Server for services such
as authentication. Id. ]f 28. Thus, we are not persuaded that Brockway does
not teach or suggest authenticating a user account to a web access server.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s articulated reason for combining
Schneider and Brockway amounts to circular reasoning that describes the
result of combining Schneider and Brockway instead of a reasoning with
some rational underpinning for making the combination. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s circulator reasoning is evidence
that the Examiner is relying on hindsight to create the combination by
relying upon the claimed features recited in Appellant’s claims for the
motivation to combine the references.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Schneider teaches an access filter for use in a virtual private network to
control access by users at clients in the network to information resources
provided by servers in the network. Schneider, Abstract. Brockway teaches
that the procedures that the remote client user needs to undertake to identify
available applications on a private network for subsequent remote terminal
service execution are substantially labor intensive and time consuming.
7
Appeal 2017-003873
Application 13/733,753
Brockway 1 5. Consequently, Brockway describes systems and methods for
presenting a merged view of remote application shortcuts from multiple
providers on a users’ desktop substantially to simplify a remote client’s
experience when accessing applications over the Internet. Id. 114. Based
on this teaching, the Examiner finds that one would have been led to
incorporate Brockway’s teachings regarding “querying” and “aggregating”
applications as discussed above with Schneider’s system to present merged
view of remote application shortcuts from multiple provides to users,
thereby simplifying the remote client’s experience when accessing
applications. Final Act. 4. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the
Examiner’s rationale for combining Schneider and Brockway relies on the
teachings of the prior art, as they would have been understood by a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, not hindsight reasoning.
Appellant argues Schneider’s principle of operation is providing
access to resources using client communications that identify specific
resources being requested, and Brockway’s principle of operation is
providing access to resources using client communications that do not
identity specific resources being requested. Appeal Br. 12—13. Thus,
Appellant argues that modifying Schneider based on Brockway would
change Schneider’s principles of operation because it would require altering
Schneider’s access filter—to obtain information needed to determine a
requested resource’s identity from an alternate source to make its access
decision. Id. at 13.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error.
“Querying” as described in Brockway would not have an adverse effect on
Schneider’s access filter. That is, Schneider’s system, as modified by
8
Appeal 2017-003873
Application 13/733,753
Brockway, would still be able to provide requested resources to only
authorized users. Schneider, Abstract. Moreover, Schneider’s system, as
modified by Brockway, would provide the requested resources to the user
only when the user is authorized regardless of knowing or not knowing the
identity of specific resources being requested. Id.', see also Brockway 117.
We will not consider Appellant’s argument in the Reply Brief that the
Examiner’s Answer includes an undesignated new ground of rejection.
Reply Br. 1—5. This issue is addressable by petition to the Director, not
appeal to the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a) (“[a]ny request to seek review of
the primary examiner's failure to designate a rejection as a new ground of
rejection in an examiner’s answer must be by way of a petition to the
Director under [37 C.F.R.] § 1.181”); Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1077—78 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (petitionable matters are not within the
jurisdiction of the Board). Moreover, because Appellant filed a Reply Brief
instead of petition to the Director, Appellant waived the right to assert that
the Examiner entered a new ground of rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a)
(petition to the Director requesting review of an examiner’s failure to
designate a rejection as a new ground of rejection in an examiner’s answer
must be filed “within two months from the entry of the examiner’s answer
and before the filing of any reply brief.”). Accordingly, we consider the
rejections on appeal on the merits. For at least the foregoing reasons, on this
record, we sustain the rejections of 1—5, 7—12, 14, 15, 17—19, and 21.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1—5, 7—12, 14, 15, 17—
19, and 21 are affirmed.
9
Appeal 2017-003873
Application 13/733,753
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
10