AirWatch LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2019002630 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 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.
15/597,435 05/17/2017 John Marshall W002.C1 (500102-1144) 4844
152577 7590 12/31/2020
Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP (VMW)
3200 Windy Hill Road, SE
Suite 1600E
Atlanta, GA 30339
EXAMINER
SALAD, ABDULLAHI ELMI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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):
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 JOHN MARSHALL,
ADAM STEPHEN RYKOWSKI, ERICH STUNTEBECK,
and JYOTHIPRAKASH HALEBEED
____________

Appeal 2019-002630
Application 15/597,435
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF 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)(1).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies VMware, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002630
Application 15/597,435

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “[c]ontrolling access to and
distribution of enterprise resources, such as documents, databases, and
executable applications, in a networked environment . . . to ensure that only
authorized users and network-connected devices may gain access to
sensitive information.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphases added):
1. A system for modifying securely managed resources
comprising:
at least one memory; and
a client device in communication with the at least one
memory, the client device configured to at least:
transmit a request to access a distribution service
associated with a plurality of resources;
receive at least one resource selected from the
plurality of resources for provisioning to the client device;
receive at least one distribution rule associated
with the at least one resource;
determine, for the at least one resource, whether
the client device complies with the at least one
distribution rule associated with the at least one
resource;
determine whether the at least one resource was
modified on the client device to generate a modified at
least one resource;
responsive to the at least one resource being
modified, store the modified at least one resource in the at
least one memory accessible to the client device;
Appeal 2019-002630
Application 15/597,435

3
send a request to the client device to transmit the
modified at least one resource to the distribution service;
and
cause the modified at least one resource to be
transmitted to the distribution service.
Appeal Br. 24–25 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Yamaoka2 and Hopmann.3 Final Act. 4–8.4
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Yamaoka as disclosing “the client device
configured to at least . . . receive at least one distribution rule . . . associated
with the at least one resource” and “determine, for the at least one resource,
whether the client device complies with the at least one distribution rule
associated with the at least one resource,” as recited in independent claim 1
and similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 15. Final Act. 4–5. The
Examiner cites Yamaoka’s disclosure of content type and content security
level information (column 2421, column 2423) stored in service content
information database 242. Id.; Ans. 4 (citing Yamaoka ¶¶ 66, 163, Fig. 4).
The Examiner maps Yamaoka’s terminal 10A (see Yamaoka Fig. 1) to the
recited “client device,” and Yamaoka’s “security levels set for the contents”

2 Yamaoka et al., US 2007/0192484 A1 (pub. Aug. 16, 2007).
3 Hopmann et al., US 7,865,469 B2 (iss. Jan. 4, 2011).
4 We note that a double patenting rejection has been held in abeyance. Final
Act. 2; Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-002630
Application 15/597,435

4
(Yamaoka ¶ 66) to the recited “distribution rule associated with the at least
one resource.” See Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 4 (“The content security level
column 2423 stores distribution rules (security levels) set for the resource
(contents).”).
Appellant argues that Yamaoka fails to teach or suggest that the
“receiv[ing] at least one distribution rule associated with the at least one
resource” is performed by the client device (i.e., terminal 10A) as claimed.
Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant argues that Yamaoka
fails to teach or suggest that the client device (i.e., terminal 10A) receives
the distribution rule (i.e., content security level). Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellant that Yamaoka does not teach or suggest that
terminal 10A receives the content security level. See Reply Br. 5; Appeal
Br. 7. Yamaoka discloses that “[c]ontent security level column 2423 stores
security levels set for the contents” in service content information
database 242, which, as Appellant points out, resides in communication
control apparatus 20. Yamaoka ¶ 66; see id. at Figs. 1–2, 4; Appeal Br. 6–7.
We find no teaching or suggestion in the cited portions of Yamaoka that
terminal 10A receives the content security level.
Appellant further argues that Yamaoka fails to teach or suggest that
“determin[ing], for the at least one resource, whether the client device
complies with the at least one distribution rule associated with the at least
one resource” is performed by the client device (i.e., terminal 10A) as
claimed. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant argues that
“security/authentication level judgment program 233 in Yamaoka ‘judges
whether authentication of the content requested by the terminal 10A should
be permitted with reference to the information contained in the access
Appeal 2019-002630
Application 15/597,435

5
request transmitted from the terminal 10A and an authentication database
240 stored in the database 24.’” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted) (quoting
Yamaoka ¶ 57). According to Appellant, Yamaoka’s security/authentication
level judgment program 233 is part of communication control apparatus 20,
not terminal 10A. Id. (citing Yamaoka Fig. 2); see Yamaoka Fig. 1.
We agree with Appellant that Yamaoka does not teach or suggest that
the client device (i.e., terminal 10A) determines whether the client device
complies with the distribution rule (i.e., content security level). See Appeal
Br. 7; Reply Br. 5. Rather, as Appellant points out, the determination of
“whether authentication of the content requested by the terminal 10A should
be permitted” based at least partly on the content security level is performed
by security/authentication level judgment program 233, which is in
communication control apparatus 20, not terminal 10A. Yamaoka ¶¶ 57–58,
Figs. 1–2; see Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner quotes Yamaoka’s description
that, “[w]hen having judged that the user of the terminal 10 that issued the
access request has already been authenticated as eligible, the
security/authentication level judgment program 233 approves the access
request without performing authentication based on detailed information
from the terminal 10.” Yamaoka ¶ 163 (quoted at Ans. 4). However,
Yamaoka does not describe the prior authentication of eligibility as having
occurred at a terminal. Instead, Yamaoka’s communication control
apparatus 20B makes this determination by consulting user authentication
processing information database 243, which is part of authentication
database 240 in communication control apparatus 20. Id. ¶¶ 50, 59,
159–161, Figs. 2, 14. The user authentication processing information
database “stores the states . . . of authentication performed by the
Appeal 2019-002630
Application 15/597,435

6
security/authentication level judgement program 233 in response to access
requests from the terminals 10A.” Id. ¶¶ 67–69 (emphases added).
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
errs in relying on Yamaoka as disclosing “the client device configured to at
least . . . receive at least one distribution rule associated with the at least one
resource” and “determine, for the at least one resource, whether the client
device complies with the at least one distribution rule associated with the at
least one resource.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1, 8 and 15. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20.5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.

5 We note that independent claim 1’s limitation of “the client device
configured to at least . . . send a request to the client device to transmit the
modified at least one resource to the distribution service” requires the client
device to be configured to send a request to itself. Independent claims 8
and 15 contain similar recitations.
Appeal 2019-002630
Application 15/597,435

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Yamaoka,
Hopmann
1–20