Ex Parte Venkataramanappa et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2019

13330682 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/330,682 12/20/2011
147148 7590 03/18/2019
Ray Quinney & Nebeker - Microsoft
36 South State Street
Suite 1400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Girish Mittur Venkataramanappa
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.
334353-US-NP 4525
EXAMINER
CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2019 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):
mspatent@rqn.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte GIRISH MITTUR VENKATARAMANAPPA,
MANDY AM KISHORE, ANDREAS ULBRICH,
AARTHI RAJMOHAN SARA VANAKUMAR,
CHANDRA PRASAD, YANN CHRISTENSEN,
DHARMA SHUKLA, and AMOL KULKARNI 1
Appeal2017-005984
Application 13/330,682
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-005984
Application 13/330,682
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3-13, 16, 17, and 20. Claims 2, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse. 2
THE INVENTION
According to Appellants:
The claimed invention is directed at enabling many applications
belonging to different tenants (i.e., multi-tenancy) to run on a
shared set of computer resources. Applications on a server are
sandboxed to provide security and isolation for multi-tenancy.
Using this suite of techniques, applications are isolated in
separate sandboxes such that each application is prevented from
affecting other process or the operating system and thus
improving overall security of a multi-tenancy system.
App. Br. 5 (formatting altered by the omission internal quotation marks and
citations to the Specification). Claim 1, reproduced below with a dispositive
limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A server, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory including
program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the
processor, cause the server to:
spawn one or more worker processes, via a worker process
manager, and to load an application on each of the worker
processes, the worker process manager configured to isolate the
one or more worker processes from each other and to control
2 We refer to the Specification, filed December 20, 2011 ("Spec."); the Final
Office Action, mailed January 4, 2016 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief, filed
August 26, 2016 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed January 4,
2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief, filed March 6, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-005984
Application 13/330,682
resource usage by the worker processes usmg each of the
following techniques:
least-privilege execution, user input messaging isolation,
security credentials isolation, data isolation, network resource
isolation, fair share resource usage, and managed runtime
security; and
detect, via a resource manager, applications that overuse
system resources.
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Schmidt
Devine
Bethlehem
US 2005/0177635 Al
US 2009/0300263 Al
US 2011/0251992 Al
REJECTION
Aug. 11, 2005
Dec. 3, 2009
Oct. 13, 2011
Claims 1, 3-13, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bethlehem, Devine, and
Schmidt. Final Act. 2-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 13,
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bethlehem,
Devine, and Schmidt. We agree with Appellants' conclusions as to this
rejection of the claims.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Bethlehem and Devine
teaches the limitations of the independent claims except for the seven
specific techniques used by the worker process manager to isolate the
worker processes from each other and to control resource usage by the
3
Appeal2017-005984
Application 13/330,682
worker processes. Final Act. 2--4. The Examiner relies on Schmidt for the
techniques missing from Bethlehem and Devine. Id. at 4.
Appellants contend, inter alia, Schmidt fails to teach or suggest at
least three of the recited techniques (App. Br. 7-11) including user input
messaging isolation (id. at 7-8). Appellants direct attention to the
Specification in support of a claim interpretation requiring "that 'user input
messaging isolation,' as claimed, prevents user input, such as keyboard and
mice input, that are provided in a sandboxed application from reaching
applications in other sandboxes and also prevents such user input from being
maliciously intercepted by an application in another sandbox." Id. at 7.
Appellants argue, although Schmidt mentions messages, "[ n Jone of
the cited paragraphs [ of Schmidt] teach or suggest anything related to user
input much less isolation of such user input and/or messages resulting from
user input." Id. The Examiner responds, finding Schmidt's "bandwidth
constraint can be used to prevent or limit messages from being sent ...
includ[ing] user-input messages such as email." Ans. 3 (, and 66-68 of
Schmidt). Appellants reply, arguing Schmidt's
Paragraph [0068] is the only cited disclosure related to messages,
but those messages are not isolated. Schmidt teaches freely
sending messages from a queue until a bandwidth limit is
achieved and then deleting any remaining unsent messages from
the queue. Freely sending messages within the bandwidth limit
as occurs in the Schmidt system does not teach or suggest
isolating those messages from other applications.
Reply Br. 4.
Based upon our review of the evidence cited by the Examiner (Ans. 3,
citing Schmidt ,r,r 34, 66-68), we find a preponderance of the evidence
supports Appellants' contentions. Contrary to the Examiner's findings, with
4
Appeal2017-005984
Application 13/330,682
respect to the disputed user-input message isolation limitation, it is
insufficient that Schmidt discloses a technique, i.e., constraining bandwidth,
that "can be used to prevent or limit messages from being sent ...
includ[ing] user-input messages" (Ans. 3, emphasis added) absent a teaching
of the asserted relationship by the prior art. Paragraphs 34 and 66-67 of
Schmidt also fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the Examiner's
underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.
See Ans. 3.
In particular, the Examiner fails to explain adequately why one
skilled in the art would have understood limiting bandwidth as teaching or
suggesting message isolation and, more specifically, user-input message
isolation. Nor does the Examiner identify, and we are unable to ascertain,
any disclosure by Schmidt of user-input messages or their isolation.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1, 13, or 17, or the rejection of dependent
claims 3-12, 16, and 20, which stand with their respective base claims.
We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error, but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-13, 16, 17,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5