Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

15635183 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
15/635,183 06/27/2017 Clifford Paul STROM 338312-US-CNT 1284
39254 7590 10/01/2020
Barta, Jones & Foley, P.C.
(Patent Group - Microsoft Corporation)
3308 Preston Road
#350-161
Plano, TX 75093
EXAMINER
LANIER, BENJAMIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
docket@bjfip.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLIFFORD PAUL STROM, DANIEL KEVIN MCBRIDE,
ARVIND RAMAKRISHNAN, YASHRAJ MOTILAL BORSE, and
CHITTARANJAN PATTEKAR
Appeal 2019-004390
Application 15/635,183
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004390
Application 15/635,183

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to “enterprise management of devices and
applications.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and the subject matter in dispute, and is
reproduced below:
1. A system for managing execution of applications
associated with an enterprise, said system comprising:
a mobile computing device comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors programmed to:
enroll the mobile computing device with the enterprise, the
enrolling authorizing the enterprise to send applications to the
mobile computing device;
upon enrolling the mobile computing device with the
enterprise, receive an enrollment token from the enterprise;
store the enrollment token in the memory;
receive an application;
based at least on a determination that the application is
associated with the enrollment token, determine the application
is associated with the enterprise that has authorization to send
applications to the mobile computing device; and
upon determining the application is associated with the
enterprise, install the application.

Appeal Br. A-1 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Appeal 2019-004390
Application 15/635,183

3
Name Reference Date
Robinson et al.
(“Robinson”)
US 7,747,851 B1 June 29, 2010
Madsen et al.
(“Madsen”)
US 8,473,749 B1 June 25, 2013
Raleigh et al.
(“Raleigh”)
US 2012/0084184 A1 Apr. 5, 2012

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–20 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No.
9,754,089. Final Act. 4–6.
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention. Final Act. 6–7.
Claims 1–3, 5, 6–10, 12–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Raleigh and Madsen. Final Act. 8–
10.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Raleigh, Madsen, and Robinson. Final Act. 10.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments that Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the reasons discussed below, Appellant has not
persuaded us of error. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
Appeal 2019-004390
Application 15/635,183

4
forth in the rejections and in the Examiner’s Answer, and we provide the
following for highlighting and emphasis.
Double Patenting Rejection (Claims 1–20)
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rejection on the ground of
double patenting. Final Act. 4–6. We, therefore, summarily sustain the
rejection.
Indefiniteness Rejection (Claims 7 and 14)
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rejection on the ground of
indefiniteness. Final Act. 6–7. We, therefore, summarily sustain the
rejection.
Obviousness Rejections (Claims 1–20)
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests “based at least on a determination that the application is associated
with the enrollment token, determine the application is associated with the
enterprise that has authorization to send applications to the mobile
computing device,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 1–2.
Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner relies on Madsen as teaching
the disputed limitation, but Madsen “does [ ] not describe comparing an
application with an enrollment token.” Appeal Br. 11. Additionally,
Appellant argues that Madsen and Raleigh both disclose only determining
whether an application can run during certain operations, not whether it can
be downloaded. Id. We, however, are not persuaded of error.
As the Examiner finds, Raleigh (not Madsen) teaches a “verification
procedure” performed on an application, including comparing an application
certificate with a signature stored on a wireless device. Ans. 5; Raleigh
¶¶ 150–152. Raleigh further teaches “policy rules” to enable “access” to
Appeal 2019-004390
Application 15/635,183

5
certain enterprise data by “secure” applications on a device. Id. at ¶ 152. As
the Examiner further finds, Raleigh’s system identifies “an approved
enterprise application” and using a “certificate (i.e., enrollment token) to
identify the application . . . as being an approved enterprise application.”
Ans. 5. In addition, as the Examiner finds, Madsen teaches using
“authentication information” to approve installation of software, including
provisioning with an “application token.” Madsen 4:37–47. The Examiner,
in sum, relies on Madsen’s teachings regarding authentication using a token,
combined with Raleigh’s teachings regarding enterprise authentication.
We, therefore, are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding
Madsen alone (or Raleigh alone). See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.”).2 Similarly, in the Reply Brief
Appellant asserts the Examiner relies on Raleigh (not Madsen), but we are
unpersuaded of error for the same reason.
Appellant also argues that neither reference teaches determining
whether to “download” an application. Appeal Br. 12. As the Examiner

2 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rationale in combining the
references, and we discern no error in the rationale on this record. See Final
Act. 9 (“It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made for the enterprise access control system of
Raleigh to have included pre-installation verification as described in Madsen
in order to ensure that approved applications are installed on the device as
suggested by Madsen (Col. 4, lines 37-40).”); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (holding there must be some “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”)
Appeal 2019-004390
Application 15/635,183

6
observes, however, claim 1 does not recite determining whether to
“download” an application. Ans. 7. Rather, claim 1 recites determining the
“application is associated with the enterprise that has authorization to send”
applications to the mobile device. Appeal Br. A-1 (Claims App.) (emphasis
added). As the Examiner finds, the combination of Raleigh’s authorization
system with Madsen’s teachings regarding “user authentication” and
“approved client applications” to “install” an application, teaches the
“association” recited in claim 1. Ans. 7.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 as obvious over Raleigh and Madsen. We are also not persuaded of
error regarding the obviousness rejections of the remaining claims, which
Appellant does not argue separately. We, therefore, sustain the obviousness
rejections of claims 1–20.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 NA Double Patenting 1–20
7, 14 112, ¶ 2 Indefiniteness 7, 14
1–3, 5, 6–
10, 12–17,
19, 20
103 Raleigh, Madsen 1–3, 5, 6–10,
12–17, 19, 20

4, 11, 18 103 Raleigh, Madsen,
Robinson
4, 11, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–20
Appeal 2019-004390
Application 15/635,183

7

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED