AirWatch LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2019004256 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 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.
14/946,065 11/19/2015 Sulay Shah W275 (500103-1450) 7966
152577 7590 01/04/2021
Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP (VMW)
3200 Windy Hill Road, SE
Suite 1600E
Atlanta, GA 30339
EXAMINER
HAILU, TADESSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2021 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):
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
uspatents@thomashorstemeyer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SULAY SHAH and NOAH WASMER
Appeal 2019-004256
Application 14/946,065
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE KEVIN F. TURNER, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

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 AirWatch LLC.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004256
Application 14/946,065

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Generally, the claimed invention is “managing network resource
permissions for applications through the use of an application catalog.”
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying
at least one program executable in at least one computing device,
the at least one program, when executed by the at least one
computing device, being configured to cause the at least one
computing device to at least:
generate a user interface presenting an application catalog
that includes a listing of a plurality of applications that are
available to managed client devices in an organization;
receive, from a managed client device operated by an end
user, a selection of a particular application of the plurality of
applications from the application catalog, the selection indicating
a particular security group of a plurality of security groups;
install the particular application on the managed client
device in response to the selection; and
configure a network of the organization to provide the
particular application on the managed client device with access
to a virtual segment of the network having access to a set of
resources corresponding to the particular security group.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dare US 2012/0036440 A1 Feb. 9, 2012
Koushik US 2016/0132214 A1 May 12, 2016

Appeal 2019-004256
Application 14/946,065

3
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dare and Koushik. Final Act. 2–8.
OPINION
Appellant argues the combination of Dare and Koushik fails to teach
or suggest configuring a network to provide the application on the client
device with access to a virtual segment of the network having access to a set
of resources corresponding to a particular group, as required by independent
claims 1, 10, and 16. Appeal Br. 5–6, 8–9, and 11–12. Appellant, in
particular, asserts that Dare does not disclose or suggest network
configuration. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant points out that while Dare
describes a configuration message, this message configures setting of the
portable computing device, not the network of the organization. Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner, on the other hand, determines that Dare sufficiently
discloses the claimed configuring step. Ans. 3–4. For example, the
Examiner explains that the “Instant Specification describes at a high level of
generality that configuration of the internal network and gateway is
performed by the network controller to facilitate access of the client
application on the client device to the network resources (Paragraph 40).”
Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, while the Specification discloses
exemplary types of network configuration, the “explicit requirements for
how a network controller configures a virtual network is not included into
the claimed limitations.” Ans. 3–4. The Examiner, then, finds that Dare’s
configuration message, which provides device configuration information
such as virtual privacy network (VPN) settings, wireless communication
Appeal 2019-004256
Application 14/946,065

4
settings, and location service settings, satisfies the claimed configuration
limitation. Ans. 4.
We disagree. Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 each expressly
requires configuring a network, not a client device. Notably, the
Specification, at cited paragraph 40, describes:
The configuration that occurs can include configuration on the
client device 103 and/or configuration of the internal network
118 (FIG. 1) and gateway 106 (FIG. 1) by the network controller
115 (FIG. 1) to facilitate access of the client application 136 on
the client device 103 to the network resources 109 in the
corresponding virtual network segment 203.
Spec. ¶ 40 (emphasis added). In other words, the Specification expressly
distinguishes between client device configuration and internal network
configuration. The Specification further explains that network configuration
“can involve configuration of routing tables, firewall rules, or other settings
of the gateway 106 or other network elements of the internal network 118.”
Spec. ¶ 46; see also Spec. ¶ 46 (noting “In other words, the routers,
switches, firewalls, and other network devices in the internal network 118
are thus configured to allow network traffic between these IP addresses to be
forwarded and not dropped.”). As such, the Specification does not support
the Examiner’s interpretation that configuring a client device would satisfy
the claimed step of configuring a network.
Dare is directed to a managed services platform including a device
management service (DMS) server where the “the DMS server can act as a
gateway for communications with one or more computing devices.” Dare,
Abstract.
Appeal 2019-004256
Application 14/946,065

5

Figure 86 of Dare depicting DMS server of managed service
platform 9010 communicating with portable computing devices 9050
through network 9020.
Dare’s DMS server 9030 sends bundles to portable computing devices
9050 through network 9020. Dare ¶¶ 7, 719. These “bundles” include one
or more configuration messages; however, the configuration information is
for the portable computing device. See, e.g., Dare ¶ 737 (defining a
configuration message as “one or more messages or transmissions that are
designed to cause a computing device to select or adjust one or more
operational settings of the computing device.”), ¶ 738 (describing that the
configuration messages may include various settings for the portable
Appeal 2019-004256
Application 14/946,065

6
computing device, such as virtual privacy network (VPN) settings, wireless
communication settings (such as Wi-Fi settings), and location service
settings or “firmware releases that include programming/code to effect or
facilitate operational adjustments or settings in one or more components of
the portable computing device 9050.”). As noted above, the Specification
does not support the Examiner’s interpretation that the claimed configuring a
network step includes configuring a portable device. As such, based on the
record before us, the Examiner has not identified or explained how Dare
teaches configuring a network as required by the independent claims and,
thus, we are persuaded of error.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–20 as unpatentable
over Dare and Koushik.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Dare, Koushik 1–20
REVERSED