Citrix Systems, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2021

2021002703 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2021)

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.
14/324,580 07/07/2014 Jacob Summers 007737.00351 8796
11331 7590 04/30/2021
Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
Attorneys for client number 007737
1100 13th Street N.W.
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005-4051
EXAMINER
LIN, SHERMAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2021 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 JACOB SUMMERS, RAKESH KUMAR, and
JULIAN PETROV
____________

Appeal 2021-002703
Application 14/324,580
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23,
and 24. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Citrix
Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-002703
Application 14/324,580

2
The present invention relates generally to a client device discovering
available remote peers and remotely accessing applications hosted thereon.
See Spec., Abstr.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a peer device, a request from a client
device to remotely access an application hosted on the peer
device, the application being executable in one of a local mode
and a remote mode, the local mode configured to execute the
application in a general desktop environment of the peer device
so that the application receives input from and provides output
to a user of the peer device, and the remote mode configured to
execute the application in another desktop and redirect output
from the application to the client device and enable the
application to receive input from the client device;
initiating, by the peer device, the application in the
remote mode by transfer of execution of the application within
the general desktop environment of the peer device to another
desktop environment of the peer device in response to the
request, wherein the another desktop environment is segregated
from other desktops of the peer device; and
providing, by the peer device, the client device
with remote access to the requested application hosted on the
peer device via the another desktop by redirecting input and
output of the application to the client device instead of the peer
device.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1, 4, and 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Sankararaman
(US 2013/0007090 A1, Jan. 3, 2013), Nancke-Krogh (US 2012/0054640 A1,
Mar. 1, 2012), and Momchilov (US 2012/0092277 A1, Apr. 19, 2012).
Final Act. 2–8.
Appeal 2021-002703
Application 14/324,580

3
R2. Claims 2, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Sankararaman, Nancke-Krogh, Momchilov, and Eskin (US 2008/0040272
A1, Feb. 14, 2008). Final Act. 8–20.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4–9
Appellant contends that “Sankararaman does not teach, disclose, or
otherwise suggest ‘an application hosted on the peer device . . . executable
in one of a local mode and a remote mode.’ Sankararaman’s application is
transferred from one computing device to another (e.g., from the ‘physical
desktop environment 15’ to the ‘data center 20’). Appellant further contends
that Sankararaman’s “modes do not execute on the same ‘peer device[,]’
[i]nstead, Sankararaman teaches different instances of an application hosted
on different computing devices.” Appeal Br. 15 (citing Sankararaman
Fig. 1). Appellant emphasizes that Sankararaman “does not describe a
‘general desktop of the peer device’ and an ‘another desktop’ on the same
‘peer device.’” Id.
In response, the Examiner finds that the “claimed limitation pertain[s]
to transferring an application from one desktop environment to another [and]
[t]he claims do not explicitly recite that the execution must be on the same
peer device as hosted.” Ans. 21. We disagree with the Examiner’s
interpretation of claim 1.
Appeal 2021-002703
Application 14/324,580

4
For example, claim 1 recites, inter alia, “transfer of execution of the
application within the general desktop environment of the peer device to
another desktop environment of the peer device . . . wherein the another
desktop environment is segregated from other desktops of the peer device.”
See claim 1; see also Spec., Fig. 3. In other words, Appellant’s Fig. 3 and
the explicit language in claim 1 illustrates an embodiment whereby a single
peer device has segregated desktop environments included thereon, i.e., at
least a general and another desktop environment.
As a result, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the “claims
do not explicitly recite that the execution must be on the same peer device as
hosted.” Ans. 21. In contrast to claim 1, Sankararaman describes a virtual
desktop environment 60 as being included on data center 20, while the
physical desktop environment 15 is on a different “physical device, e.g.,
computer, mobile phone, tablet computer device, etc.), referred to as
physical desktop environment 15.” See Sankararaman ¶¶ 21–22; see also
Sankararaman, Fig. 1. Sankararaman further discloses that “[p]hysical
desktop environment 15 is in communication with a data center 20 by way
of a network 11” (see Sankararaman ¶ 22), which further illustrates that
separate devices, with separate desktop environments, are being utilized.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Sankararaman
teaches the aforementioned limitations, as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner has not found that any of the other references of record
teaches this feature. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other
arguments regarding independent claim 1. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–9.
Appeal 2021-002703
Application 14/324,580

5
Claims 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 19
Although we do not agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of
claim 1, we find that the Examiner’s aforementioned interpretation is
appropriate for independent claims 10 and 15. In other words, we agree with
the Examiner that “[t]he claims [10 and 15] do not explicitly recite that the
execution must be on the same peer device as hosted.” Ans. 21.
For example, unlike claim 1, claims 10 and 15 merely recite “a
background desktop environment that is segregated from the general desktop
environment” (see claims 10 and 15), but does not necessarily require that
the background desktop environment and the general desktop environment
be included on the same peer device. See generally claims 10 and 15.
As a result, we find unavailing Appellant’s argument that
Sankararaman “does not describe a ‘general desktop of the peer device’ and
an ‘another desktop’ on the same ‘peer device’” (Appeal Br. 15), given that
independent claims 10 and 15 do not require such a configuration. As
written, claims 10 and 15 read on two desktop environments located on
separate and distinct devices, which is taught in Sankararaman.
As noted supra, Sankararaman discloses a virtual desktop
environment 60 as being included on data center 20 and a physical desktop
environment 15 on a different physical device. See Sankararaman ¶¶ 21–22;
see also Sankararaman, Fig. 1. In Sankararaman, instances of an application
is transferred between computing environments. See Sankararaman, Abstr.
Given Sankararaman’s teaching above, we find that the claimed
“transferring the first instance of the first application from the general
desktop environment to a background desktop environment that is
segregated from the general desktop environment” (see claims 10 and 15)
Appeal 2021-002703
Application 14/324,580

6
reads on Sankararaman’s teachings. Additionally, Appellant concedes that
“Nancke-Krogh [also] teaches two desktop environments located on separate
and distinct devices.” See Appeal Br. 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over at least Sankararaman,
likewise with the rejection of dependent claims 11, 13, 18, and 19, which are
not argued separately with particularity.

Claims 16 and 21
Regarding claims 16 and 23, Appellant contends that “none of the
cited references teach[es] ‘redirecting input and output of the application to
the client device’ by ‘executing the application in the another desktop
environment’ of the ‘peer device.’” Appeal Br. 20. Appellant further argues
that no “portion of Momchilov[]teaches ‘executing the application in the
another desktop environment’ of the peer device.” Id.
Here, the Examiner is relying on the combined teachings of
Sankararaman and Momchilov to teach the argued limitations, not just
Momchilov, and finds “the virtual desktop environment and remote display
protocols in Sankararaman can be combined or modified with the I/O
redirection to a client device in Momchilov to suggest the claimed
limitation(s).” Ans. 25.
As noted above, we find error in the Examiner’s finding that
Sankararaman teaches a single peer device having both a general desktop
environment and another desktop environment, such as a background
environment. Given that claim 16 requires “the background desktop
environment of the [same] peer device” (see claim 16), we agree with
Appeal 2021-002703
Application 14/324,580

7
Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not support the rejection of
claim 16 (and dependent claim 21).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 21.

Claims 23 and 24
We note, however, that claim 23 (and dependent claim 24) does not
require the background desktop environment to be included in the same peer
device. See claim 23. As such, like for claim 10, Sankararaman teaches the
claimed background desktop environment, as recited in claim 23.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that Momchilov does not teach
“‘executing the application in another desktop environment’ of the peer
device” (Appeal Br. 20), we point out that claim 23 does not recite “of the
peer device,” as proffered by Appellant. Thus Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 23.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that Sankararaman teaches
transferring an application running in physical desktop environment to a
virtual desktop environment (see Final Act. 3) and finds that Nancke-Krogh
teaches transfer of execution of the application. Id. at 4. Appellant fails to
rebut these specific findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 24.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 16, and 21 are
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 23, and 24
are affirmed.
Appeal 2021-002703
Application 14/324,580

8
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6–9 103 Sankararaman,
Nancke-Krogh,
Momchilov
1, 4, 6–9
2, 5, 10, 11, 13,
15, 16, 18, 19,
21, 23, 24
103 Sankararaman,
Nancke-Krogh,
Momchilov, Eskin
10, 11,
13, 15,
18, 19,
23, 24
2, 5, 16,
21
Overall
Outcome
10, 11,
13, 15,
18, 19,
23, 24
1, 2, 4–9,
16, 21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART