Ex Parte Agarwalla et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 2, 2010

10666093 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 2, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BIKASH AGARWALLA, SUJOY BASU, VANISH TALWAR,
and RAJENDRA KUMAR
____________

Appeal 2009-007695
Application 10/666,093
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THU A. DANG, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007695
Application 10/666,093

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention pertains to grid computing, particularly securely
accessing a remote desktop across firewalls. See generally Spec. 1, 4.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An interactive grid computing system comprising:

an interactive grid computing service provider
comprising:

a resource that said interactive grid computing service
provider reserves for a client based on a request from said client
for an interactive session for a service that said resource is
enabled to provide;

a first firewall coupled to said resource for protecting
said resource; and

a remote display server coupled to said first firewall for
providing secure access to said resource over a secure
connection and for providing interactive graphical data
associated with said resource, wherein said client is enabled to
communicate directly with said resource over said secure
connection during said interactive session.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Butman US 6,026,430 Feb. 15, 2000
Herse US 7,127,745 B1 Oct. 24, 2006
(filed Mar. 24, 2000)

Appeal 2009-007695
Application 10/666,093

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-21, and 23-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Butman. Ans. 3-9.2
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 7, 11, 14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Butman and Herse. Ans. 9-12.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Butman
discloses an interactive grid computing system comprising every recited
feature including (1) a “remote display server” which the Examiner equates
to Butman’s domain communications server A1, and (2) firewalls coupled to
servers that store resources. Ans. 3-4, 12-14. According to the Examiner,
Butman’s clients can communicate directly with resources either via the
same network or server A1. Ans. 13-14.
Appellants argue that in Butman’s internal communications
embodiment, each client-side communication server is behind a respective
firewall, and therefore does not teach (1) a first firewall coupled to the
resource for protecting the resource, and (2) a remote display server coupled
to the first firewall to provide secure access to the resource as recited in
claim 1, let alone protect the remote display viewer by a second firewall as
recited in claim 12. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 1-3.
Appellants add that since Butman’s client-side communication servers
communicate directly with only with domain communications server A1 in

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed April 21,
2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 14, 2008; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed September 8, 2008.
Appeal 2009-007695
Application 10/666,093

4
the external communications embodiment, Butman does not teach that (1)
the client communicates directly with the resource over a secure connection
as recited in claim 1, and (2) the remote display viewer communicates
directly with the remote display server as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 3-4. The issues before us, then, are as follows.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Butman
discloses:
(1)(a) a first firewall coupled to a resource for protecting the resource,
and (b) a remote display server coupled to the first firewall to provide secure
access to the resource, where the client communicates directly with the
resource over a secure connection as recited in claim 1?
(2) protecting the remote display viewer by a second firewall, where
the remote display viewer communicates directly with the remote display
server as recited in claim 12?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Butman’s system controls distribution, access security, filtering,
organizing, and displaying information across disparate networks.
To this end, domain communications server A1 communicates with multiple
client-side communications servers C1-C9 that are each located behind a
respective firewall F1-F9. Although each client-side communications server
has only one actual communications “pipe”3 P with domain communications

3 A “pipe” is a temporary logical connection made between each client-side
communications server and the domain communications server A1. Pipes
Appeal 2009-007695
Application 10/666,093

5
server A1, information may be disseminated from the client-side
communications server C1 to any or all of the other client-side
communications servers C2-C9. Butman, col. 1, ll. 6-11; col. 12, l. 25 – col.
13, l. 15; Fig. 1.
2. Butman’s Figure 1a shows an exemplary implementation with four
clients C1-C4 behind respective firewalls F1-F4 that are connected to
domain communications server A1 via respective pipes. Client C2 (an
investment bank) includes a wide area network C2WAN that, via pipe P2,
interconnects associated client sites that each has its own local area network
(C2-HKLan, C2-NYLan, C2-LNLan). Client C2 can therefore communicate
logically with designated external sites as if they were internal sites, yet
maintain the protections provided by its firewall F2, since client C2 does not
physically connect with these external sites except domain communications
server A1. Butman, col. 13, l. 44 – col. 14, l. 24; Fig. 1a.
3. Although client C2 seems to communicate with clients C1, C3, and
C5 over pipe P2, client C2 actually has only one actual pipe connecting it to
domain communications server A1. This single pipe can be a direct physical
connection. Butman, col. 14, ll. 25-36; Fig. 1a.
4. Client C2 communicates externally with clients C1, C3, and C5
through domain communications server A1 over a set of “virtual pipes”
VP2. This “virtual pipe” communication occurs as if the clients directly
communicate with each other. But each client actually physically
communicates with only the domain communications server, and only

can be formed over the Internet using conventional TCP-IP networking
protocol and secure sockets with encryption. Butman, col. 12, ll. 34-39.
Appeal 2009-007695
Application 10/666,093

6
“virtually” communicates with the other clients. Butman, col. 14, ll. 36-45;
Fig. 1a.
5. In a preferred embodiment, a client-side communications server
CSS for a given customer must use a domain communications server to
communicate with external customers. Butman, col. 16, ll. 3-6; Fig. 4.
6. Appellants refer to Figures 4 and 5 and Pages 17 through 19 of the
present application in connection with the limitations of claim 1 reciting that
the “client 210, 450 is enabled to communicate directly with said resource
444 over said secure connection 550 during said interactive session.” App.
Br. 5 (Summary of Claimed Subject Matter).
7. Appellants note that in connection with claim 12, the present
application describes that a Secure Socket Layer (SSL) connection 550 is
established between the remote display viewer 512 and the remote display
server, wherein the remote display viewer 512 is enabled to communicate
directly with the remote display server 442. App. Br. 6 (Summary of
Claimed Subject Matter).
8. Figure 5 of the present application is a data flow diagram for
providing secure communication through firewalls in an interactive grid
environment. System 500 provides a secure connection (e.g., SSL
connection 550) between (1) a remote display server (e.g., the Virtual
Network Computing (VNC) server 502 corresponding to the remote display
server 442 of Figure 4), and (2) a remote display viewer (e.g., VNC viewer
512 corresponding to remote display resource 454 of Figure 4) of a user.
Proxy servers 504, 508 (corresponding to firewalls 448, 458, respectively)
and Internet 506 are located between the VNC viewer and server via SSL
connection 550. Spec. 19:13–20:6; Fig. 5.
Appeal 2009-007695
Application 10/666,093

7

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, (1) a first firewall coupled to a resource for protecting the resource, and
(2) a remote display server coupled to the first firewall to provide secure
access to the resource, where the client communicates directly with the
resource over a secure connection.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 14) that nothing in the claim
precludes Butman’s client-to-client communication via the domain
communications server A1 as meeting the disputed limitations. Each client
in Butman has a respective firewall that protects resources behind those
firewalls which are, in turn, coupled to the domain communications server
(i.e., the “remote display server”). FF 1-2.
Although Butman’s clients directly physically connect with the
domain communications server via “pipes” (FF 2-3, 5), nothing in claim 1
precludes the clients’ virtually directly connecting to each other via “virtual
pipes.” See FF 4. Notably, this “virtual pipe” communication occurs as if
the clients directly communicate with each other. Id. Therefore, despite the
fact that Butman’s clients communicate with each other via the domain
communications server (FF 1-5), we nonetheless see no error in the
Examiner’s position (Ans. 14) that clients C1 and C3 (or any other clients in
Butman) would directly virtually communicate with each other and their
associated resources. Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 9-11;
Reply Br. 1-3) are simply not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Appeal 2009-007695
Application 10/666,093

8
Lastly, notwithstanding Butman’s virtual direct communication
capabilities, we also note that Appellants’ own disclosure contemplates
intervening entities as part of a “direct” connection between the remote
display server and viewer including, among other things, proxy servers and
the Internet (which would likewise involve intervening entities such as
servers). See FF 7-8. The Examiner’s point in this regard (Ans. 14) is well
taken.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2, 4-6, and 8-10 not separately argued.

Claims 12, 13, 15-21, and 23-27
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
12 which calls for, in pertinent part, protecting the remote display viewer by
a second firewall, where the remote display viewer communicates directly
with the remote display server. As noted above in connection with claim 1,
nothing in claim 12 precludes the direct virtual communication that occurs
between clients and their associated resources, notwithstanding the
involvement of the domain communications server to this end. See FF 1-5.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 5-6)
that Butman’s remote display server would provide graphical data to a
remote display viewer protected by a second firewall as claimed. We reach
this conclusion emphasizing that nothing in claim 12 precludes the multiple
firewalls in Butman that would respectively protect the clients’ resources
and viewers when these clients directly communicate with each other
virtually as noted previously. See FF 1-4.
Appeal 2009-007695
Application 10/666,093

9
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 12, and claims 13, 15-21, and 23-27 not separately
argued.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We will also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3,
7, 11, 14, and 22 over Butman and Herse (Ans. 9-12) essentially for the
reasons indicated by the Examiner. Appellants basically reiterate their
previous arguments regarding Butman’s alleged shortcomings with respect
to the independent claims, and that Herse does not cure these deficiencies.
App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 4-5. We are not persuaded by these arguments,
however, for the reasons previously discussed.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time that the
references cannot be combined as the Examiner proposes since, among other
things, (1) Herse teaches away from Butman, and (2) modifying Butman
with Herse would allegedly change Butman’s principle of operation and
render Butman unsuitable for its intended purpose. Reply Br. 5-6. We deem
these untimely arguments to be waived, and thus decline to address them
here. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments
that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the
Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 3, 7, 11, 14, and 22.

Appeal 2009-007695
Application 10/666,093

10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12,
13, 15-21, and 23-27 under § 102, and (2) claims 3, 7, 11, 14, and 22 under
§ 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528