Ex Parte London et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201713733753 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017) 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. 13/733,753 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation