Ex Parte JAUDON et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201612575385 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation