Ex Parte Pinto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2017

13078846 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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. 13/078,846 04/01/2011 Gus Pinto 099011-2701 (CTX-620US) 8469 13860 7590 03/29/2017 Foley & Lardner LLP/Citrix Systems Inc. 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER HO, RUAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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): PatentTeam@citrix.com ipdocketing @foley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GUS PINTO, DAVID KORETSKY, and ADAM MARANO Appeal 2016-004113 Application 13/078,8461 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Citrix Systems, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-004113 Application 13/078,846 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ invention relates to displaying and controlling remote applications within a virtual desktop displayed on a tablet computing device. Spec. 12. Appellants’ Specification explains that while tablet computers are controlled using a touch screen, many applications are configured to execute in a desktop environment with the availability of a mouse pointer and mouse. Spec. 14. When a user of a tablet computer remotely accesses an application configured to be controlled by a mouse, the user may be unable to successfully interact with all the elements of the remote application because of the lack of a mouse. Spec. 1 5. Appellants’ invention addresses this problem by displaying a mouse pointer on the display of the tablet computer and allows the user to control the movement of the mouse pointer on the tablet computer. Spec. 1 5. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for interacting with a remote application displayed within a virtual desktop on a tablet computing device using a mouse pointer, the method comprising: locally executing a virtual desktop on a tablet computing device executing an operating system that generates and displays a native desktop, wherein the tablet computing device operating system does not contemplate a mouse pointer; displaying the virtual desktop within a context of the native desktop such that the virtual desktop appears to be the native desktop; displaying a mouse pointer within the virtual desktop; receiving, by the virtual desktop, a request from a user of the tablet computing device to execute a remote application within a context of the virtual desktop; 2 Appeal 2016-004113 Application 13/078,846 transmitting the received user request to a remote server over a virtual channel, wherein the remote server, in response to receiving the user request, executes the remote application and transmits application output generated by the remote application to the tablet computing device; displaying the received application output in an application output window displayed within a context of the virtual desktop; and interacting with the remote application using the mouse pointer, the mouse pointer drawn in the virtual desktop by the remote application. References and Rejections 1. Claims 1,15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”), Lublin (US 2010/0306381; Dec. 2, 2010) and Pishevar (US 2012/0079080 Al; Mar. 29, 2012). 2. Claims 2—5, 7, 13, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Lublin, Pishevar, and Nickolov (US 2009/0276771 Al; Nov. 5, 2009). 3. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Lublin, Pishevar, and Nickolov, and Konanka (US 7,725,737 B2; May 25, 2010). 4. Claims 8—12 and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over AAPA, Lublin, Pishevar, and Louch (US 2010/ 0245260 Al; Sept. 30, 2010). 3 Appeal 2016-004113 Application 13/078,846 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “interacting with the remote application using the mouse pointer, the mouse pointer drawn in the virtual desktop by the remote application.” The Examiner finds Pishevar teaches or suggests this limitation. Final Act. 5—6 (citing Pishevar || 35, 53). Specifically, the Examiner finds Pishevar teaches that a source application will provide user input signals to a remote target application which will then ‘“interpret those instructions 348 and execute the application in a more robust manner.’” Final Act. 6. Appellants argue that in Pishevar, “the remote application is simply receiving instructions and interpreting them. Nowhere, does Pishevar teach or suggest ‘the mouse pointer drawn in the virtual desktop by the remote application’ as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 10. We are persuaded of Examiner error. In Pishevar a source device, such as an iPhone, and a target device, such as a laptop, each run versions of the CO-PLAY application. Pishevar 153. Pishevar teaches that the source CO-PLAY application, running on the iPhone, can provide user input signals to the target CO-PLAY application running on the laptop, which will then execute the application. Id. However, nothing in Pishevar teaches or suggests that a mouse pointer is drawn in either application, or which application would draw the mouse pointer. We note, in particular, that the teachings in Pishevar relied upon by the Examiner relate to the use of “an iPhone as a controller, e.g., iGolf,” which takes “the accelerometer inputs of an iPhone source device to direct the execution of the game on the target device.” Pishevar 153; see also Pishevar Figs. 5A—D. Although Pishevar discloses that CO-PLAY Controller 205 may be coupled to interface 4 Appeal 2016-004113 Application 13/078,846 components, which may include a mouse {id. 135), the Examiner’s findings do not show that such inputs teach or suggest having a remote application display a mouse pointer in a virtual desktop in the manner claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. We, also, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining independent claims 12 and 15, which include limitations of commensurate scope, or of the pending dependent claims because they depend from one of the aforementioned independent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is reversed. REVERSED 5