AirWatch LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 16, 2021

2019004279 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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.
14/974,234 12/18/2015 Erich Stuntebeck W048.C1(500103-1211) 2619
152577 7590 02/16/2021
Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP (VMW)
3200 Windy Hill Road, SE
Suite 1600E
Atlanta, GA 30339
EXAMINER
DESROSIERS, EVANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2021 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 ERICH STUNTEBECK and EVAN HURST
________________

Appeal 2019-004279
Application 14/974,234
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 21–40, which constitute all of the pending claims.
Appeal Br. 5–9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light
of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Airwatch LLC as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed Dec. 3, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), 2.
Appeal 2019-004279
Application 14/974,234

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
Managed real-time communications between user devices
may be provided. Upon receiving a request to instantiate a
communication connection from an application, a secure session
may be established between the application and a remote
application. Input from a user of the application may be
received, subjected to at least one management policy, and
transmitted to the remote application.
Spec., Abstr.
Independent claim 21, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter
of the appealed claims:
21. A method comprising:
receiving a request to initiate a messaging connection from
a messaging application executed on a client device;
determining whether the request is in compliance with at
least one management policy, wherein the at least one
management policy specifies that the messaging connection must
be created using a particular application;
determining whether a device associated with the request
is in compliance with at least one second management policy,
wherein the at least one second management policy specifies at
least one compliance restriction based on properties of the client
device; and
in response to determining that the request is not in
compliance with the at least one management policy or the
device is not in compliance with the at least one second
management policy, applying a remediation action to at least one
of the device or the request.

Appeal 2019-004279
Application 14/974,234

3
STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS1
Claims 21–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Roth (US 9,519,696 B1; issued Dec. 13, 2016) and
Rangarajan (US 2015/0263865 A1; published Sept. 17, 2015). Final Act. 6–
11.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Roth discloses most of the limitations of
independent claim 21, but does not disclose the two requirements, “wherein
the at least one management policy specifies that the messaging connection
must be created using a particular application” and “wherein the at least one
second management policy specifying at least one compliance restriction
based on properties of the client device.” Final Act. 6–7. The Examiner
finds that Rangarajan teaches these two requirements and that motivation
existed to combine the references’ teachings. Id. at 7–8 (citing Rangarajan
¶¶ 10–12).
Appellant argues that paragraph 10 of Rangarajan merely teaches,
“enforc[ing] the connection policies associated with each VPN [(virtual

1 The Examiner initially also rejected claims 21–40 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1–16 of
Stuntebeck (US 9,225,742 B2; issued December 29, 2015). Final Act. 3–5.
However, Appellant subsequently asserts that a terminal disclaimer was
filed, rendering the double-patenting rejection moot. Appeal Br. 8. The
Examiner then states in the Examiner’s Answer, “[t]he Examiner has no
comment on the appellant’s statement of the grounds of rejection to be
reviewed on appeal.” Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), 3 (mailed March 12,
2019). Accordingly, we understand that the Examiner does not dispute that
the terminal disclaimer renders the double-patenting rejection moot. We,
therefore, treat the double-patenting rejection as withdrawn.
Appeal 2019-004279
Application 14/974,234

4
private network)] connection profile by . . . determining if using the VPN
connection profile would violate any of the connection policies associated
therewith.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues, “Rangarajan discloses
various examples of policies associated with the connection manager” (id. at
6), but that none of those examples, nor the cited passages of Rangarajan,
“teach or suggest a policy that enforces whether a messaging connection
made by a messaging application must be created using a particular
application, as is recited by claim 21.” Appeal Br. 7.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner subsequently expands upon
the reasoning underlying the rejection. Ans. 6–10. More specifically, the
Examiner newly finds that Rangarajan “further discloses ‘whether or not a
VPN connection is auto-triggered may be determined based on various
factors such as the identity of a calling application/process’, which is part of
the ‘auto-triggering connection policy to a particular VPN profile.’” Id. at 9
(citing Rangarajan ¶ 57).
Appellant responds,
Claim 21 requires determining compliance with at least
one management policy that specifies that the messaging
connection must be created using a particular application. . . .
Merely “automatically establishing” a VPN connection does not
check whether a messaging connection is being made by a
particular application, as is recited by claim 21 of Appellant’s
claims.
Reply Brief filed May 10, 2019 (“Reply Br.”), 3–4 (citing Rangarajan ¶ 47
[sic] [recte ¶ 57]).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Paragraph 57 of Rangarajan
describes a connection policy in which the computing device’s connection
manager 114 determines whether a VPN connection is auto-triggered based
Appeal 2019-004279
Application 14/974,234

5
on various factors such as the identity of a calling application. Rangarajan
¶ 57. Determining whether an application should auto-trigger a VPN
connection is not the same thing as determining whether “the messaging
connection must be created using a particular application,” as recited in
claim 21.
The Examiner additionally sets forth a second new rationale for why
Rangarajan teaches the limitation, “the at least one management policy
specifies that the messaging connection must be created using a particular
application.” Ans. 8–9. More specifically, the Examiner reasons that the
disputed claim language is subject to a broader interpretation than argued by
Appellant. According to the Examiner,
the claims do not require differentiating one application from
another, or otherwise imply any restriction on which application
(or even which type of application) may or may not meet the
claim. Further, the claim limitation of a “particular application”
doesn’t even have to be a program, it could be a protocol like
HTTP. Similarly, the claims [don’t] really state what
“compliance” is or what noncompliance is. Thus, the overly-
broad claim limitation reads[]on any element of a policy that
specifies something regarding the establishment (created) of a
message connection, such as, e.g., requiring the incoming
connection be a VPN connection, as recited in Rangarajan.
Ans. 8–9.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that the Examiner’s broad
interpretation of the claim language is improper. Reply Br. 2–3. Claim 21
specifically recites, “the at least one management policy specifies that the
messaging connection must be created using a particular application.”
Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added), cited in Reply Br. 3. Rangarajan makes
clear that VPN connections are tunneling protocols—not particular
applications, as claimed. Rangarajan ¶ 2.
Appeal 2019-004279
Application 14/974,234

6
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant persuades us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 21. Accordingly, we
reverse the obviousness rejection of that claim and of claims 22–40, which
either depend from claim 21 or otherwise include the disputed limitation.
Appeal Br. 10–15.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
21–40 103 Roth, Rangarajan 21–40