Citrix Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 16, 2020

15345584 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2020)

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