William Deweese et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 12, 2020

15220331 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 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.
15/220,331 07/26/2016 William DeWeese W006.CIP1.C1(500102-1292) 5400
152577 7590 02/12/2020
Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP (VMW)
3200 Windy Hill Road, SE
Suite 1600E
Atlanta, GA 30339
EXAMINER
CERVETTI, DAVID GARCIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2020 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 WILLIAM DEWEESE and ERICH STUNTEBECK

Appeal 2018-006197
Application 15/220,331
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.2 Claims App. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed July 26, 2016 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed June 22, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
November 27, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed March
22, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed May 22, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “[A]pplicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Airwatch LLC as the real party-in-
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006197
Application 15/220,331

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to network
environment (100) utilizing secondary device (108) as a key for authorizing
access to resources at enterprise server (103). Spec. ¶¶ 18–24, Fig. 1.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
causing a resource to be encrypted to create an encrypted
version of the resource, the encrypted version of the resource
being configured to be inaccessible by a primary client device,
the encrypted version of the resource being configured to be
decrypted using an authorization credential to create an
unencrypted version of the resource, and the unencrypted
version of the resource being configured to be accessible by the
primary client device;
causing the encrypted version of the resource to be
provided to the primary client device over a network from an
enterprise server;
determining that the primary client device is authorized
to access the unencrypted version of the resource based at least
in part on a first distribution rule, the first distribution rule
being associated with the primary client device;
determining that a secondary client device is authorized
to provide the primary client device with the unencrypted
version of the resource based at least in part on a second
distribution rule, the second distribution rule being associated
with the secondary client device; and
causing the authorization credential to be provided over
a network from an enterprise server to the secondary client
device, wherein the secondary client device is in
communication with the enterprise server over the network.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.)
Appeal 2018-006197
Application 15/220,331

3
Figure 1, discussed above and reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed invention:

Figure 1 illustrates enterprise network (109) with a secondary device (108)
functioning as a key device. Id. ¶ 19.
Appeal 2018-006197
Application 15/220,331

4

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Number Filed Publ’d/Issued
Ondet US 2005/0097327 A1 Aug. 26, 2004 May 5, 2005
Dykeman US 2013/0174223 A1 Dec. 30, 2011 July 4, 2013

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
1. Claims 1–4 and 7–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Ondet. Final Act. 4–6.
2. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Ondet and Dykeman. Id. at 6–7.
V. ANALYSIS
1. Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Ondet
describes “the secondary client device is in communication with the
enterprise server over the network,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 6. In particular, Appellant argues that Ondet discloses a network
device (ND) including a communication interface (30) to communicate with
a network (1) via a communications link (2), whereas its application device
(AD) lacks the communication interface to communicate with the trusted
server. Id. at 7–8 (citing Ondet ¶¶ 27, 31, Figs. 1, 2).

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2018-006197
Application 15/220,331

5
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As depicted in Figure 1 of Ondet below, AD communicates with the network
(1) via the ND, which uses the communication interface (30) (not depicted in
Figure 1).

Figure 1 illustrates a network for distributing data to application device
(AD). Ondet ¶ 27.

In particular, Ondet provides the content server (CS) that may
distribute content to AD. Id. Although AD does not communicate directly
with the CS over the network, we note the disputed claim limitation does not
require a direct communication between the secondary client device and the
enterprise server over network. To meet the disputed limitation, it suffices
that the secondary client device communicate (directly or indirectly) with
the server over the network. Because Ondet’s AD communicates with the
Appeal 2018-006197
Application 15/220,331

6
CS over the network, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2–4, and 7–20, because Appellant
has either not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above; claims 2–4 and 7–20 fall with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).

2. Obviousness Rejection
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 6, Appellant reiterates that Ondet
does not teach that AD communicates with the server over the network.
Appeal Br. 9. As discussed above, this argument is not persuasive.
Consequently, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Appeal 2018-006197
Application 15/220,331

7

VI. CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1–4, and 7–
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–20 102 Ondet 1–4, 7–20
5, 6 103 Ondet, Dykeman 5, 6
Overall Outcome 1–20

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