Ex Parte Jaudon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12575385 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/575,385 10/07/2009
26582 7590 02/29/2016
HOLLAND & HART, LLP
222 South Main Street, Suite 2200
P.O. Box 11583
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84147
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JOE JAUDON
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P004.0l (77564.0010) 9889
EXAMINER
CHEEMA, UMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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):
patentdocket@hollandhart.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOE JAUDON and DAVID LOWREY
Appeal2014-005178
Application 12/575,385 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "dynamically updating
computer memory to configure environmental and location-based
information within a virtual computing environment and to modify process
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Aventura HQ, Inc.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005178
Application 12/575,385
requests related to environmental and location-based information." Spec.
i-f 2. Of the claims on appeal, claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of
the appeal and is reproduced below, with emphasis added to highlight the
dispositive disputed issue.
1. A method of updating client information, comprising:
receiving at a host computing device client location-
based information from a client computing device;
updating at the host computing device at least one
environmental variable associated with a virtual session, the
virtual session comprising a virtualized application executed at
the host computing device for access at the client computing
device, wherein the updating is based on the client location-
based information; and
providing the at least one environmental variable
associated with the virtual session to the application in response
to a request from the application for location-based
information for the session.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Cheng (US 7,502,835 Bl; Mar. 10,
2009), Keller et al. (US 2009/0198769 Al; Aug. 6, 2009) (hereinafter
"Keller"), and Takeda et al. (US 2004/0105420 Al; June 3, 2004)
(hereinafter "Takeda"), collectively referred to as the "combination."
ISSUE ON APPEAL
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination teaches or suggests "the virtual session compris[ es]
a virtualized application executed at the host computing device for access at
2
Appeal2014-005178
Application 12/575,385
the client computing device," as recited in independent claims 1, 9, 10, 16,
and 26.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination, and Takeda in particular, fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See Br. 7-9. Specifically,
Appellants argue Takeda teaches establishing a "virtual communication path
or session" using the Session Initiation Protocol ("SIP") prior to transferring
voice IP packets. See Br. 7 (citing Takeda i-fi-f 10, 14--18, 32, 124).
Appellants further contend a SIP session (e.g., VoIP call) is simply a SIP
established communication link and Takeda nowhere teaches or suggests the
session includes "a virtualized application executed at the host computing
device for access at the client computing device." See Br. 7-8 (citing
Takeda i-fi-f 15-18).
The Examiner finds Takeda teaches or suggests establishing SIP
sessions that comprise communication links between two networks (e.g.,
Voice over IP ("VoIP") calls) wherein voice IP packets are transferred
during the session. See Ans. 6 (citing Takeda i-f 14); see also Non-Final Act.
8 (citing Takeda i-fi-f 10, 14, 124). The Examiner also finds Takeda teaches
using VoIP techniques for transmitting voice by IP packets. See Ans. 6.
The Examiner concludes Takeda teaches this disputed limitation. See id.
We find Appellants' above arguments persuasive. We agree with
Appellants that Takeda's teaching of SIP being used for establishing VoIP
calls and using VoIP techniques for the established calls does not teach or
suggest "a virtualized application executed at the host computing device for
access at the client computing device." See, e.g., Takeda i-f 14. SIP and the
3
Appeal2014-005178
Application 12/575,385
described VoIP techniques relate to session control and the flow of IP
packets. See Takeda i-fi-f 15-20. In contrast, virtualized applications relate to
software applications that function without being installed and configured
directly on the computing device at the point of user access. See Spec. 3,
11. 2--4. Based on the evidence of record, we are constrained to agree with
Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination teaches
or suggests this disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we also agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination teaches or suggests independent claims 1, 9, 10,
16, and 26. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-8, 11-15, 17-25, and 27-30
each incorporate the disputed limitation and likewise have not been shown to
be rendered obvious by the combination.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-30.
REVERSED
4