Citrix Systems, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 16, 202015345584 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2020) 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. 15/345,584 11/08/2016 Gary Barton 007737.00769 1628 11331 7590 04/16/2020 Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. Attorneys for client number 007737 1100 13th Street N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER KORSAK, OLEG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2492 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/16/2020 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): PTO-11331@bannerwitcoff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GARY BARTON, JAMES ROBERT WALKER, NITIN DESAI and ZHONGMIN LANG1 ___________ Appeal 2019-001044 Application 15/345,584 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–9, 11–19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5. Claims 10 and 20 were cancelled. See Appeal Brief 19, 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We Affirm. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Citrix Systems, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3. An oral hearing was held on March 24, 2020. A copy of the transcript will be added to the record in due course. Appeal 2019-001044 Application 15/345,584 2 Introduction According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter provides techniques for managing enterprise2 applications on mobile devices. See Abstract. Representative Claim 1. A method of managing applications on a mobile device, comprising: executing, on the mobile device, a client agent application configured to enforce one or more policy files of a mobile device management system, wherein each policy file defines one or more access controls enforced by the mobile device management system when one or more applications are executing locally on the mobile device, and wherein the client agent application is further configured to wirelessly communicate with one or more applications executing on a remote computing device and presented on a display of the mobile device. 2 “Some enterprises (e.g., corporations, partnerships, governments, academic institutions, other organizations, etc.) maintain enterprise computer networks that allow enterprise users, such as employees, access to enterprise resources, such as hardware and software applications for email, customer relationship management (CRM), document management, enterprise resource planning (ERP), and the like, as well as other data controlled by the enterprise.” Specification ¶4. Appeal 2019-001044 Application 15/345,584 3 References Name3 Reference Date Roundtree US 2008/0194296 A1 August 14, 2008 Hayton US 2011/0277027 A1 November 10, 2011 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 7–12, 17–19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roundtree. Final Action 2–5. Claims 3–6, 13–16 and 224 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roundtree and Hayton. Final Action 6–8. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 22, 2018), the Reply Brief (filed November 14, 2018), the Final Action (mailed December 15, 2017) and the Answer (mailed September 14, 2018), for the respective details. 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection Claims 1, 11 and 21 Appellant contends: 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 4 Although the Examiner includes claim 22 among the claims listed as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Final Action 5, Answer 3), the subject matter of claim 22 corresponds to that recited by claims 4 and 14 and all three claims are collectively addressed by the Examiner in responding to Appellant’s arguments (Answer 9–10). Accordingly, for purposes of this appeal, we treat claim 22 as having been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2019-001044 Application 15/345,584 4 [T]he Office Action alleges Roundtree para. 25 teaches “the client agent application . . . wirelessly communicate[s] with one or more remote applications” of claim 1 by describing “aspects of the system may be distributed over the Internet or over other networks (including wireless networks)”, while Roundtree para. 36 teaches “the client agent application . . . presented on a display of the mobile device” of claim 1 by describing the SIM 150 sends a static or dynamic display for presentation to a user via a display on the mobile device. (The Office Action p. 3.). Appeal Brief 6. Appellant indicates that support for the claim limitation “wherein the client agent application is further configured to wirelessly communicate with one or more applications executing on a remote computing device and presented on a display of the mobile device” can be found in the Specification, paragraph 271, lines 2–5 (“The virtualization mode may include, for example, when an application is executing remotely from the mobile device (e.g., remote access), but is presented to a user of the mobile device through the client agent software to appear as though the application is executing locally.”). Appeal Brief 3. Appellant further contends the claimed invention’s remote applications that communicate wirelessly with the client agent are “aspects of the system distributed over the Internet” and “[by] contrast, the applications presented on a display on the mobile device in Roundtree is something sent by the SIM card over the APDU (Application Protocol Data Units) channel or MMC (Multimedia card) channel in response to a request by the mobile device.” Appeal Brief 6. The Examiner finds that Roundtree teaches: Those skilled in the relevant art will recognize that portions of the system reside on a server computer, while corresponding Appeal 2019-001044 Application 15/345,584 5 portions reside on a client computer such as a mobile or portable device, and thus, while certain hardware platforms are described herein, aspects of the system are equally applicable to nodes on a network. In an alternative embodiment, the mobile device or portable device may represent the server portion, while the server may represent the client portion. Answer 5 (citing Roundtree ¶25); see Final Action 3. The Examiner finds Roundtree further teaches: The mobile device 100 and/or SIM 150 may provide services that include executable software, software configurations, hardware configurations and controls, and handset operating system interfaces. As disclosed herein, executable software may include, without limitation, any software program stored on the mobile device or associated memory device, both permanently and temporarily connected via hardware or wireless connectivity. Roundtree ¶ 26 (emphasis added); see Answer 4, 6. Roundtree SIM’s executable software can include software programs that can be connected via wireless connectivity the same as the claimed client agent application. Consequently, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because Roundtree’s SIM card has access to the mobile device’s wireless conductivity. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s additional findings from the Answer in the Reply Brief. See Reply Brief 1 (“Without acquiescing to any particular argument raised in the Examiner’s Answer, Appellant believes that all issues raised in the Examiner’s Answer were sufficiently addressed in Appellant’s Appeal Brief.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, as well as, claims 7–11, 17–19, and 21, not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 9. Appeal 2019-001044 Application 15/345,584 6 Claims 2 and 12 Appellant contends, “[Roundtree’s] SIM card is also not analogous to the [claimed] remote applications because the SIM card does not communicate wirelessly at all and therefore the wireless communication between the client application and remote application cannot be performed” and therefore “the interaction between the SIM card and the mobile device in Roundtree is not analogous to the interaction between the client agent and the remote applications.” Appeal Brief 11–12. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because as we stated above, Roundtree SIM’s executable software can include software programs that can be connected via wireless connectivity the same as the claimed client agent application. See Roundtree ¶¶ 25, 26. We sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2 and 12. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection Claims 3 and 13 Appellant contends, “the combination of Roundtree and Hayton fails to teach or suggest ‘the received data comprises output from the remote application to update a graphical user interface presented by the client agent on the display of the mobile device’” because “‘the files stored in the SIM 150’ in Roundtree para. 35 is not ‘the output from the remote application’ in claim 3, because, as discussed above, the SIM card is not analogous to the remote device that executes the remote application since the SIM card does not communicate wirelessly at all.” Appeal Brief 12. Appellant further contends, “Hayton does not fix the deficiencies because the Office Action has never suggested any part of Hayton disclosed that claimed limitation, Appeal 2019-001044 Application 15/345,584 7 since the Office Action only intended to use Hayton to teach the ‘remote presentation protocol.’” Appeal Brief 13. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because as we stated above, Roundtree SIM’s executable software can include software programs that can be connected via wireless connectivity the same as the claimed client agent application. See Roundtree ¶¶25, 26. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 13. Claims 4, 14, and 225 Appellant argues that the combination of Roundtree and Hayton fails to disclose claim 4’s limitations because “Hayton para. 98 does not teach or suggest that there are different sets of policy files (i.e., the first set and the second set of policy files),” “the policy engine 195 in Hayton is used to determine the ‘method[s] of execution’” which “none of which either expressly or inherently suggests the method of execution includes ‘access controls’” and “Hayton para. 98 does not describe any roles the policy engine plays when the remote application is presented.” Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner finds that “Roundtree teaches that ‘The access policy may be a dynamically changing policy that determines one or more characteristics, parameters, or locations of the mobile device and associates a validation process according to the determined characteristics, parameters, or locations.”’ Answer 10 (citing Roundtree ¶536). The Examiner further finds that Roundtree teaches that “[t]he access policy may define the 5 See note 4 6 The Examiner mistakenly cites to Roundtree ¶ 35 when in actuality, the cited language is found in Roundtree ¶ 53. We view this as harmless error. Appeal 2019-001044 Application 15/345,584 8 validation process to be used, establish a time interval in which to require validation, and/or otherwise regulate access to secured data at a certain time for a certain device.” Answer 10 (citing Roundtree ¶537). The Examiner determines that Roundtree’s teachings are “the same as first and second policy sets” recited in the claims. Answer 10. The Examiner’s findings are not disputed in the Reply Brief. See Reply Brief 1. Consequently, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4, 14 and 22, not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 13–14. Claims 5 and 15 Appellant argues that the combination of Roundtree and Hayton fails to suggest the claim limitation of claims 5 and 15 because Hayton’s “application delivery system is not analogous to the client agent application because the application delivery system is on the server and therefore remote from the mobile device.” Appeal Brief 15 (citing Final Action 7). The Examiner states that Hayton was cited to teach “responsive to a policy of a policy engine selecting one of a predetermined number of methods for executing the enumerated application on a server or locally. This is done automatically by the application delivery system (Hayton, [0099]).” Answer 11 (citing Hayton ¶99 (“[A] client 102 requests execution of an application program and the application delivery system 190 comprising a server 106 selects a method of executing the application program.”)). The Examiner explains that Roundtree was cited to teach claim 1’s limitation “executing, 7 The Examiner mistakenly cites to Roundtree ¶ 35 when in actuality, the cited language is found in Roundtree ¶ 53. We view this as harmless error. Appeal 2019-001044 Application 15/345,584 9 on the mobile device, a client application” in the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Answer 11. The Examiner finds that Roundtree also teaches “whether to initiate execution of a user-requested application locally or remotely” and “access[ing] policy based on network or location.” Answer 11 (citing Roundtree ¶¶ 46, 47, 53, 54; claims 5 and 6).” The Examiner’s findings are not disputed in the Reply Brief. See Reply Brief 1. Consequently, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 15, not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 14–15. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 16, not argued by Appellant. See Appeal Brief 12–15. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3–6, 12– 16 and 228. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7–12, 17–19, 21 102 Roundtree 1, 2, 7–12, 17–19, 21 3–6, 13–16, 22 103 Roundtree, Hayton 3–6, 13– 16, 22 Overall Outcome 1–9, 11– 19, 21, 22 8 See note 4 Appeal 2019-001044 Application 15/345,584 10 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation