Citrix Systems, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 20212021002703 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation