Ex Parte McDade

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12146276 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/146,276 06/25/2008
30423 7590 10/04/2016
Seed IP Law Group LLP/ST US Originating
701 FIFTH A VE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Darryn D. McDade SR.
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.
06-S-105US01
(850063.615)
EXAMINER
LIU,SIMING
4799
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
Patentinfo@SeedIP.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARRYN D. MCDADE SR. 1
Appeal2014-009501
Application 12/146,276
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-12 and 14--20. Claim 13 is canceled. App. Br. 37. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellant discloses a network of extendable computer resources that
creates a virtual computing environment for a remote client. Abstract.
1 Appellant identifies STMicroelectronics, Inc., as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009501
Application 12/146,276
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A method of distributed computing, comprising:
passing a request for a set of computing resources and a
recipient policy to a remote computer source, wherein the
recipient policy is arranged to identifY a local computing client,
identifY at least two operating systems to instantiate in a single
virtual computing environment, and limit the requested set of
computing resources to computing resources that are permitted
to a user of the local computing client, and wherein the request
for the set of computing resources is arranged to include
allocation and de-allocation of certain ones of the set of
computing resources according to a volume of demands for the
certain ones of the set of computing resources among a plurality
of computing clients and an availability of computing resources
within the virtual computing environment;
locally receiving a multiframe motion picture stream of
encoded signals generated by the remote computer source, said
stream representing video output of the virtual computing
environment hosted by the remote computer source;
decoding said multiframe motion picture stream with the
local computing client;
generating a cursor sequence of images wherein each
image includes a graphic representation of a cursor;
embedding the cursor sequence of images within the
decoded multiframe motion picture stream;
locally accepting motion input to control a position of the
graphic representation of the cursor within subsequent
respective images in the cursor sequence of images;
locally accepting input information related to the graphic
representation of the cursor, the input information configured
for communication to the remote computer source and operable
to control the virtual computing environment; and
2
Appeal2014-009501
Application 12/146,276
communicating the input information to the remote
computer source.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Final Act. 3--4.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being upatentable over Paz et al., (US 2005/0091695 Al; published Apr. 28,
2005; hereinafter "Paz"), Hunleth et al., (US 7,634,793 B2; issued Dec. 15,
2009; hereinafter "Hunleth"), Behnke (US 5,864,705; issued Jan. 26, 1999),
Eppstein et al., (US 8,234,650 Bl; issued July 31, 2012; hereinafter
"Eppstein"), Kishan et al., (US 2006/0190482 Al; published Aug. 24, 2006;
hereinafter "Kishan"), and Vega (US 2006/0294524 Al; published Dec. 28,
2006). Final Act. 4--9.
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Paz, Hunleth, Behnke, Eppstein, Kishan, Vega, and
Dalal et al., (US 2007/0230918 Al; published Oct. 4, 2007; hereinafter
"Dalal"). Final Act. 25-27.
The Examiner rejects claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Croft et al., (US 2007/0180493 Al; published Aug. 2,
2007; hereinafter "Croft"), Paz, Hunleth, Eppstein, Kishan, and Vega. Final
Act. 19-25.
The Examiner rejects claims 10-12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Paz, Hunleth, Behnke, Eppstein, Kishan, and
Hamel et al., (US 2006/0116667 Al; published June 1, 2006; hereinafter
"Hamel"). Final Act. 9-15.
3
Appeal2014-009501
Application 12/146,276
The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paz, Hunleth, Behnke, Eppstein, Kishan, Hamel, and
Ikeda et al., (US 2007/0066394 Al; published Mar. 22, 2007; hereinafter
"Ikeda"). Final Act. 28-29.
The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paz, Hunleth, Behnke, Eppstein, Kishan, Hamel, and
Woodworth (US 7,817,552 B2; issued Oct. 19, 2010). Final Act. 29-30.
The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Paz, Hunleth, Benke, Eppstein, Kishan, Hamel, and
Dalal. Final Act. 27-28.
The Examiner rejects claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Paz, Hunleth, Behnke, Eppstein, Kishan, and
Richardson et al., (US 2009/0003454 Al; published Jan. 1, 2009; hereinafter
"Richardson"). Final Act. 15-19.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the Specification provides
insufficient written description support for the claim 1 recitation of "wherein
the recipient policy is arranged to ... identify at least two operating systems
to instantiate in a single virtual computing environment"?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Eppstein, in combination with
the other cited references, teaches or suggests "passing a request for a set of
computing resources and a recipient policy to a remote computer source," as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
4
Appeal2014-009501
Application 12/146,276
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
Examiner finds the Specification "does not specify that the at least two
operating systems to [be] instantiated are identified by the recipient policy."
Final Act. 4. Thus, the Examiner finds the Specification does not reasonably
apprise an artisan of ordinary skill that Appellant had possession of the
claim 1 recitation wherein the recipient policy is arranged to identifY at least
two operating systems to instantiate in a single virtual computing
environment. Id. at 3--4.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the Specification
discloses that computing client 162 is permitted to instantiate one or more
operating systems within virtual computing environment (VCE) 180. App.
Br. 17 (citing Spec. 13). Appellant argues that "the full recipient policy
element of claim 1 identifies the resources requested and where the
limitations on those resources are found." Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly notes, permitting the instantiation of two operating systems is not
the same as identifying two operating systems to instantiate. Ans. 4.
Appellant merely cites to disclosures that show that user 166 may operate
multiple operating systems within VCE 180 (Spec. 13, 11. 25-30), although
"the number of applications, programs, and other computing operations may
be limited by a host policy" (id. at 14, 11. 2--4). See also App. Br. 15-16;
Reply Br. 3. However, Appellant has not shown that the Specification
5
Appeal2014-009501
Application 12/146,276
discloses a recipient policy that identifies operating systems to instantiate
(i.e., that specifies which operating systems are to be instantiated).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification provides
inadequate written description support for the claim 1 recitation of "wherein
the recipient policy is arranged to identify a local computing client, identify
at least two operating systems to instantiate in a single virtual computing
environment."
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-9, which Appellant does not
argue separately with respect to this issue. App. Br. 18-19.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
In rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies on
Eppstein's request specifying characteristics for an apparatus (the
characteristics requiring inclusion logical devices and physical devices that
correspond to the logical devices), to teach or suggest passing a request for
a set of computing resources and a recipient policy to a remote computer
source. Final Act. 7 (citing Eppstein col. 2, 11. 27-36). In particular, the
Examiner relies on Eppstein's identification of the apparatus to teach or
suggest the recipient policy identifying a local computing client (Ans. 5), but
the Examiner relies on other references to teach or suggest the recipient
policy including additional information (see Final Act. 8 (citing Kishan i-f 15;
Vega i-f 8)).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "Eppstein is related to
the design and creation of an entire virtual server farm .... Eppstein does not
even teach any device comparable to the local computing client recited in
claim 1 that sends any comparable data." App. Br. 20. In particular,
6
Appeal2014-009501
Application 12/146,276
Appellant argues that "[w]hile it is possible that a different client device can
access a server farm designed and deployed by Eppstein to request resources
and to create a virtual machine within the assigned resources, there is no
teaching whatsoever [of] such a concept. ... [T]he most that Eppstein 's
system could accomplish would be to design and deploy a server farm[.]"
Id. at 23.
Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive of error because they do not
persuasively distinguish the claimed request for a set of computing
resources and a recipient policy from Eppstein's resource allocation request
identifying characteristics of an apparatus. Eppstein's apparatus includes
"two or more interconnected devices, including ... a computer system, a
networked computing system, a networked computer system, a farm, a
server farm, a virtual server farm (VSF), a data center, and an instant data
center (DC)." Eppstein col. 43, 11. 59---64. Thus, by specifying
characteristics of a computer system for purposes of resource allocation,
Eppstein teaches or suggests requesting computing resources and a recipient
policy in the manner claimed. Whether that computer system is part of a
larger system (e.g., multiple interconnected devices such as a server farm) is
irrelevant because the claimed request is for "a set of computing resources"
and is not limited to requests for a single virtual computing environment.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred by erroneously
interpreting the claimed recipient policy as merely identifying a local
computing client. Reply Br. 7; see also Ans. 5. However, the Examiner
merely relies on Eppstein for teaching or suggesting a recipient policy
arranged to identify a local computing client, and relies on other references
to teach or suggest the claimed recipient policy providing further
7
Appeal2014-009501
Application 12/146,276
information. See, e.g., Final Act. (citing Kishan if 15; Vega if 8). Thus, the
Examiner presents findings that show the claimed recipient policy, with all
the recited information (not just identification of a local computing client),
would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill. Appellant has not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the
Examiner's findings.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Eppstein, in
combination with the other cited references, teaches or suggests "passing a
request for a set of computing resources and a recipient policy to a remote
computer source," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner's 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2-5, which Appellant does not argue
separately. App. Br. 28. Appellant's arguments with respect to the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 6-12 and 14--20 rely on
similar recitations and similar arguments. Id. at 28-31. Therefore, for the
reasons discussed above, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 6-12 and 14--20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 and 14--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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8