VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 16, 2022

2021000157 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022)

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. 15/879,408 01/24/2018 Dong Wang D828 4362 152689 7590 02/16/2022 Novum Patent Services 515 Powhattan Ave San Francisco, CA 94110 EXAMINER BADAWI, ANGIE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2179 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2022 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): aram@novumpatent.com ipadmin@vmware.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DONG WANG, HAIOU JIANG, YUNFEI SAN, PENG GUO, and KUN SHI ____________ Appeal 2021-000157 Application 15/879,408 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2022). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VMware, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000157 Application 15/879,408 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates “generally to virtual desktop infrastructure and more specifically to techniques for accessing a virtual desktop session on a multi monitor setup across different devices by using image scanning and by implementing a web server.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for extending a virtual desktop session with monitors of different computing devices via image scanning, the method comprising: executing a virtual desktop client on a primary computing device, the virtual desktop client being configured to access the virtual desktop session with a virtual desktop hosted on a remote server over a network connection; establishing a web server on the primary computing device by the virtual desktop client, wherein the web server is configured to provide a web application for streaming pixel data of a graphical user interface (GUI) of the virtual desktop session to a requesting computing device; detecting input indicating that the virtual desktop session is to be extended with a secondary computing device that is used as an additional monitor for the virtual desktop session; displaying an encoded image on the primary computing device by the virtual desktop client, wherein the encoded image is encoded with information identifying the web server established by the virtual desktop client on the primary computing device; receiving at the primary computing device a request from the secondary computing device to access the virtual desktop, wherein the request is transmitted by the web application that is launched on a web browser of the secondary computing device in response to the secondary computing device scanning the encoded image displayed by the virtual desktop client; configuring the virtual desktop to produce the GUI of the virtual desktop session on a first monitor corresponding to the Appeal 2021-000157 Application 15/879,408 3 primary computing device and on a second monitor corresponding to the secondary computing device; and streaming pixel data of the second monitor of the GUI of the virtual desktop session to the secondary computing device over a web connection established between the web browser of the secondary computing device and the web server operating on the primary computing device. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2016/0057135 A1; published Feb. 25, 2016) (“Jiang”) and AbiEzzi et al. (US 2017/0351537 A1; published Dec. 7, 2017) (“AbiEzzi”). Final Act. 3. Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jiang, AbiEzzi, and Pendergast et al. (US 2017/0300189 A1; published Oct. 19, 2017) (“Pendergast”). Final Act. 13. ANALYSIS Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jiang and AbiEzzi teaches or suggests (emphases added): detecting input indicating that the virtual desktop session is to be extended with a secondary computing device that is used as an additional monitor for the virtual desktop session; . . . [and] configuring the virtual desktop to produce the GUI of the virtual desktop session on a first monitor corresponding to the primary computing device and on a second monitor corresponding to the secondary computing device; as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 8 and 15? Appeal 2021-000157 Application 15/879,408 4 The Examiner finds that Jiang’s use of a QR code “to authenticate a device to a virtual desktop or to transfer a virtual desktop session from one device to another” teaches the claimed “detecting input indicating that the virtual desktop session is to be extended with a secondary computing device that is used as an additional monitor for the virtual desktop session.” Final Act. 4 (citing Jiang ¶ 24); see id. at 5 (citing Jiang ¶¶ 24, 38, 40). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Jiang’s use of a QR code “to authenticate a device to a virtual desktop” or “to transfer the active session from the authenticated computing device to another device or to simply authentication another device,” and “to migrate the virtual desktop from the computing device to the mobile device,” teaches the claimed detecting and configuration limitations. Ans. 20-21 (emphasis omitted) (citing Jiang ¶¶ 24, 38, 40, Fig. 5). Appellant argues that “Jiang teaches that a virtual desktop session can be migrated or pulled from one client device to another client device,” but not the claimed “extending the GUI of a virtual desktop across multiple monitors,” which “would require reconfiguring the GUI so that it can be viewed on separate monitors.” Appeal Br. 13. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Jiang discloses that “each virtual machine (e.g., 110-1, 110-2, 110-N) can execute a guest operating system (e.g., 105-1, 105-2, 105-N) that hosts a desktop for a single user at a time.” Jiang ¶ 20. As an example, “if five users connect to host server 102-1 for the purpose of initiating remote desktop sessions, the host server 102-1 can launch five VMs, each hosting one desktop for each one of the five users.” Id. Jiang also discloses the use of a QR code that is “encoded with information that is used to authenticate a device to a virtual Appeal 2021-000157 Application 15/879,408 5 desktop or to transfer a virtual desktop session from one device to another.” Id. ¶ 24 (emphasis added). Jiang explains that the “image (e.g., a QR code) . . . has encoded information that can be used to transfer the active session from the authenticated computing device to another device.” Id. ¶ 38. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not sufficiently show that Jiang’s use of an image to transfer a virtual desktop from one device to another, in an environment where an operating system hosts a desktop for a single user at a time, teaches or suggests extending a virtual desktop session to produce its GUI on a first monitor and on a second monitor as required by the claim. Specifically, the claimed “configuring the virtual desktop to produce the GUI of the virtual desktop session on a first monitor corresponding to the primary computing device and on a second monitor corresponding to the secondary computing device” shows that the claimed “virtual desktop session is to be extended with a secondary computing device that is used as an additional monitor” does not merely require transferring or migrating the virtual desktop session to a second monitor. Claim 1 (emphases added). Instead, the claim requires extending the virtual desktop session to be produced on both the first monitor and the second monitor. However, in contrast to the claim, the cited portions of Jiang teach “transfer[ring] the virtual desktop session from one device to another.” Jiang ¶ 24 (emphasis added). The Examiner does not sufficiently address Appellant’s argument and explain how Jiang’s “transferring” disclosure teaches the “extend[ing]” limitation. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. Appeal 2021-000157 Application 15/879,408 6 § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and dependent claims 2- 7, 9-14, and 16-20. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 103 Jiang, AbiEzzi 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 6, 13, 20 103 Jiang, AbiEzzi, Pendergast 6, 13, 20 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED