Bryan Katz et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

13630038 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 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.
13/630,038 09/28/2012 Bryan Katz 4366-487 7787
48500 7590 01/02/2020
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
KELLER, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRYAN KATZ, TEDD YOUEL,
DARYL HUFF, and MICHAEL KEENAN
Appeal 2018-003348
Application 13/630,038
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, 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 1–7 and 12–20. See Final Act. 1. 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. The real party in interest has been assigned by two of the inventors,
Bryan Katz and Ted Youel, to Avaya Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003348
Application 13/630,038
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a media contention for virtualized devices.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
providing a media controller application that is executed
by a microprocessor on a virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI)
client device;
receiving, by the microprocessor, a virtualization media
stream that is a communications channel for virtualized
operations; and
receiving, by the microprocessor, a second media stream
that is a direct communication channel separate from the
communications channel of the virtualization media stream;
wherein at least portions of the virtualization media stream
and the second media stream are received simultaneously and
require simultaneous use of at least one output facility of the VDI
client device, and wherein the microprocessor, when executing
the media controller application, controls handling of the
virtualization media stream and the second media stream at the
VDI client device by provisioning the at least one output facility
to provide for each of the virtualization media stream and the
second media stream.
Appeal 2018-003348
Application 13/630,038
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jain
Ryman
US 2009/0216835
US 2011/0004680 A1
Aug. 27, 2009
Jan. 6, 2011
Escoda
Lauwers
McConnell
Somekh
Huang
US 2011/0197132 A1
US 2011/0225578 Al
US 2013/0018953 A1
US 2013/0275611 A1
US 8,611,428
Aug. 11, 2011
Sept. 15, 2011
Jan. 17, 2013
Oct. 17, 2013
Dec. 17, 2013

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–5, 12, 13, and 15–20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Huang,
in view of Ryman, and further in view of Escoda.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over McConnell, Huang, Ryman, Escoda, and further in view
of Jain.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over McConnell, Huang, Ryman, Escoda, and further in view
of Somekh.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over McConnell, Huang, Ryman, Escoda, and further in view
of Lauwers.

Appeal 2018-003348
Application 13/630,038
4
OPINION
To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the Final action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer.
1. Claims 1, 3–5, 12, 13, and 15–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Huang, Ryman, and
Escoda

Appellant argues that the combination of McConnell, Huang, Ryman,
and Escoda fails to teach or suggest the claim 1 limitation of
wherein at least portions of the virtualization media stream
and the second media stream are received simultaneously and
require simultaneous use of at least one output facility of the
VDI client device, and wherein the microprocessor, when
executing the media controller application, controls handling of
the virtualization media stream and the second media stream at
the VDI client device by provisioning the at least one output
facility to provide for each of the virtualization media stream
and the second media stream.

See Appeal Br. 9–12.
We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
McConnell and Huang both show two streams received and used
simultaneously (McConnell para. 70, Figs. 3–6, and Huang col. 4,
ll. 6–33). Ans. 5. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that
McConnell teaches meeting room handlers for posting multiple
streams, e.g., video and audio, for presentation during a meeting in a
virtual meeting room where attendees to the meeting include user
systems that may include virtual desktop computers. Ans. 5 (citing
McConnell para. 70). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
McConnell teaches the claimed VDI client device and the two streams
Appeal 2018-003348
Application 13/630,038
5
(i.e., video and audio) received and used simultaneously. Id. We
further agree with the Examiner that Huang explicitly teaches a
mobile device including processing, memory, and software and a
media controller application executed by a microprocessor. Id.
Appellant further argues that McConnell, Huang, Ryman, and
Escoda are silent regarding that any microprocessor, when executing
the media controller application, “controls handling of the
virtualization media stream and the second media stream . . . by
provisioning the facility to provide for each of the virtualization media
stream and the second media stream” where the virtualization media
stream and the second media stream are received simultaneously at a
VDI client device and require simultaneous use of at least one output
facility of the VDI client device, as claimed. Appeal Br. 13.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that McConnell teaches a real-time meeting room
with multiple attendees requiring simultaneous use of a common
virtual meeting. See Ans. 6, Final Act. 6 (citing McConnell para. 72).
The Examiner then relies on Escoda for teaching portions of the
virtualization media stream and the second media stream are being
received simultaneously, wherein Red5 is used to stream video and
audio (i.e., two streams) between the clients, publish and subscribe
their streams, also used to replicate actions over some shared objects
(virtualization media stream) and also allow for simultaneous
interaction between multiple participants over a set of shared contents.
See Ans. 6; Final Act. 6 (citing Escoda paras. 17, and 26).
Appellant further argues that the Examiner improperly employs
hindsight reconstruction. Appeal Br. 15–17.
Appeal 2018-003348
Application 13/630,038
6
We do not agree with Appellant. We agree with the Examiner
that adequate motivation was provided for combining the teachings.
In particular, we agree with the Examiner’s reasons to combine stating
that the motivation to combine Huang with the system of McConnell
is to stream multimedia content to client devices (citing Huang col. 2,
ll. 11–12), Ryman with the system of McConnell-Huang in order to
provide a management functionality for a managed virtual desktop session
(citing Ryman para. 110), Escoda with the system of McConnell-Huang-
Ryman in order to allow simultaneous interaction between multiple
participants over a set of shared contents and provide cheaper
implementations than existing solutions (citing Escoda para. 17). See
Ans. 8.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
and for the same reasons the rejection of claims 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15–
20 not argued separately.

2. Claims 2, 6–7, and 14
Appellant argues that the additional references of Jain, Somekh, and
Lauwers used to reject claims 2, 6, 7, and 14 do not cure the above cited
deficiencies and repeat similar hindsight arguments as those presented above
with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 17–27.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument because there was no
deficiency found that needed to be cured, and we adopt the Examiner’s
findings as well as the articulated motivations to combine with respect to
these claims, which we find reasonable and adequate without having to
repeat then herein. See generally Ans. and Final Act.
Appeal 2018-003348
Application 13/630,038
7
Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 6,
7, and 14.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is Affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 12,
13, 15–20
103(a) McConnell, Huang,
Ryman, Escoda
1, 3–5, 12,
13, 15–20

2 103(a) McConnell, Huang,
Ryman, Escoda, Jain
2
6, 7 103(a) McConnell, Huang,
Ryman, Escoda,
Somekh
6, 7
14 103(a) McConnell, Huang,
Ryman, Escoda,
Lauwers
14
Overall Outcome: 1–7, 12–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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