__ ,.. .. --
`
`ey Docket No. 5'577-130
`
`PATENT
`
`. \) ~ 100'\ .
`~I
`j\ll\
`-o
`~ I
`~
`~"" '°RAnl: I~~:' Co~ et al. ·.
`":...:.::.::'!ienal No .. 09/211,528
`Filed: December_] 4, 1998
`For: METHO.DS, SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR
`CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF APPLICATION PROGRAMS ON A
`NETWORK
`
`.
`Grou~ ~Unit: 2155
`Exammer. Backer, F.
`
`RECEIVED
`JUN 7 2001
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK. OFFilifhnology Center 2101
`W-'} fr
`~
`~
`1.....o\
`b ... .' _ 1
`oJA~,
`./" .
`
`.
`
`•
`
`May 31, 2001
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`Washington, DC 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`This Amendment is responsive to the Official Action ("Action") mailed March 28,
`
`2001. As the amendments to the claims below are limited to the addition of new claims,
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that a version of the amendments with the changes marked is .
`
`not required. Applicants affirm the election of the Grot,ip l claims as patentability of the
`
`claims in the respective groups does not depend on the patentability of claims in the other
`
`group.
`
`In The Claims:
`
`/ / /
`Please cancel Claims 15-20 and 22 without prejudice for purposes of filing the Group
`
`II claims in a divisional application.
`
`/
`
`PlYts~ a_?d the following new claims:
`,(
`(-j(_
`(New) A system according to Claim ~further comprising:
`means for maintaining application management information for the plurality of
`
`applications at the server; and
`
`wherein the means for establishing a user desktop includes means for including a
`
`plurality of display regions associated with a set of the plurality of application programs for
`
`which the user is authorized responsive to the application management infonnation.
`
`IPR2017-00184
`UNIFIED EX1021
`
`

`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/211, 528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page2
`
`\~
`
`'
`
`~ (New) A system according to Claim 2/ wherein the means for establishing a
`
`\~
`
`user desktop includes:
`
`means for distributing application launcher programs associated with each of the set
`
`of the plurality of application programs for which the user is authorized to the client; and
`
`wherein the means for receiving a selection includes means for receiving the selection
`
`from a one of the application launcher programs which is associated with the selected one of
`
`the plurality of application programs.
`
`\~
`jl.
`includes means for maintaining configurable user preference information for the plurality of
`
`\~
`(New) A system according to Claim/wherein the means for maintaining
`
`application programs at the server and wherein the means for providing an instance includes
`
`means for providing a set of the configurable user preference information associated with the
`
`user and the selected one of the plurality of application programs to the client.
`
`t1Y
`p.
`user preference information includes user preferences configurable by the user and user
`
`,~
`(New) A system according to ClaimYwherein the set of the configurable
`
`preferences not configurable by the user which are con~gurable by an administrator and
`
`further comprising means for updating the user preferences configurable by the user
`
`responsive to updates from the user and updating the user preferences not configurable by the
`
`user responsive to updates from the administrator.
`
`~
`_,):{.
`
`~
`(New) A system according to Claim .):(wherein the application launcher
`
`.
`
`programs are JAVA™ applets and the user desktop interface is a JAVA™ applet executed by
`
`a web browser.
`~'V
`)ef.
`user desktop includes;
`
`(New) A system according to Claim /
`
`,t
`
`wherein the means for establishing a
`
`means for configuring the user desktop interface responsive to an identifier of the user
`
`associated with the login request so as to provide associated information for the user desktop
`
`interface; and
`
`

`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/2 11 ,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 3
`
`means for ,providing the user desktop interface and the associated information for the
`
`user desktop interface to the client for display.
`
`'},, ~
`)ff
`user desktop includes means for configuring the user desktop interface not to include display
`
`'1.-'1/
`(New) A system according to Claim){wherein the means for configuring the
`
`regions associated with any of the plurality of application programs installed at the server for
`
`which the user i$ not authorized.
`
`~-
`
`(
`(New) A system according to Claim)r'further comprising means for
`
`detennining a license availability for the selected one of the plurality of application programs
`
`for the user and wherein the means for providing includes means for providing an
`
`unavailability indication to the client responsive to the selection if the license availability
`
`indicates that a license is not available for the user.
`
`1,;~
`(New) A system according to Claim,}1 wherein the means for establishing a
`
`user desktop includes means for distributing application launcher programs associated with
`
`each of the set of the plurality of application programs for which the user is authorized to the
`
`client and wherein the means for receiving a selection includes means for receiving the
`
`selection from a one of the application launcher programs which is associated with the
`
`selected one of the plurality of application programs and wherein the means for determining a
`
`license availabiJity includes means, associated with one of the application launcher programs
`
`associated with the selected one of the plurality of application programs, for obtaining the
`
`license avai lability from a license management server.
`I),,~
`~
`(New) A system according to Claim .Jl wherein the license management
`jr'S.
`server is the server.
`
`'}~
`)'!.
`programs are installed on a network drive accessible to the server.
`
`\~
`(New) A system according to Claim,){ wherein the plurality of application
`
`

`
`.. .
`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 4
`
`.
`,~
`~~
`(N~_w) A system according to Claim}<' further comprising means for
`}t5.
`receiving at the server event logging information from the instance of the selected one of the
`
`plurality of application programs.
`
`-i$
`~
`fa
`(New) A system according to Claim ~rther comprising means for
`providing the received event logging information to a network management server associated
`
`with the server.
`
`~
`)1.
`compnsmg:
`
`~
`(New) A computer program product according to Claim).1' further
`
`computer readable program code means for maintaining application management
`
`information for the plurality of applications at the server; and
`
`wherein the computer readable program code means for establishing a user desktop
`
`includes computer readable program code means for in.eluding a plurality of display regions
`
`associated with a set of the plurality of application programs for which the user is authorized
`
`responsive to the application management information.
`
`-;o
`11\
`ft (New) A computer program product according to Claim~ wherein the
`
`computer readable program code means for establishing a user desktop includes:
`
`computer readable program code means for distributing application launcher
`
`programs associated with each of the set of the plurality of application programs for which
`
`the user is authorized to the client; and
`
`wherein the computer readable program code means for receiving a selection includes
`
`computer readable program code means for receiving the selection from a one of the
`
`application launcher programs which is associated with the selected one of the plurality of
`
`application programs.
`
`~v
`;YJ.
`
`\
`(New) A computer program product according to Claim)i' wherein the
`
`computer readable program code means for maintaining includes computer readable pr_ogram
`
`code means for maintaining configurable user preference information for the plurality of
`
`_,,,-(cid:173)
`' ( LI >
`"
`
`I
`
`:-t .
`
`,
`
`1
`
`

`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 5
`
`application programs at the server and wherein the computer readable program code means
`
`for providing an instance includes computer readable program code means for providing a set
`
`of the configurable user preference information associated with the user and the selected one
`
`of the plurality of application programs to the.client.
`
`~o/
`~
`_§fl
`(New) A computer program product according to Clai~}'ef wherein the set of
`the configurable user preference information includes user preferences configurable by the
`
`user and user preferences not configurable by the user which are configurable by an
`
`administrator and further comprising computer readable program code means for updating
`
`the user preferences configurable by the user responsive to updates from the user and
`
`updating the user preferences not configurable by the user responsive to updates from the
`
`administrator.
`
`?\
`(New) A computer program product according to Claim~herein the
`application launcher programs are JAVA™ applets and the user desktop interface is a
`
`JAVA TM applet executed by a web browser.
`
`,
`s
`,~
`(New) A computer program product according to Claim~herein the
`"1:>~
`computer readable program code means for establishing a user desktop includes;
`
`computer readable program code means for configuring the user desktop interface
`
`responsive to an identifier of the user associated with the login request so as to provide
`
`associated information for the user desktop interface; and
`
`computer readable program code means for providing the user desktop interface and
`
`the associated information for the user desktop interface to the client for display.
`~
`~s
`(New) A computer program product according to Claim~herein the
`)t.
`computer readable program code means for configuring the user desktop includes computer
`
`readable program code means for configuring the user desktop interface not to include
`
`display regions ~sociated with any of the plurality of application programs installed at the
`
`server for which the user is not authorized.
`
`\ f I
`'4 v:
`,
`
`

`
`....
`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page6
`
`~~
`)4.
`computer readable program code means for determining a license availability for the selected
`
`\~
`(New) A computer program product according to Claim;21 further comprising
`
`one of the pluraf ity of application programs for the user and wherein the computer readable
`
`program code means for providing includes computer readable program code means for
`
`providing an unavailability indication to the client responsive to the selection if the license
`
`availability indicates that a license is not available for the user.
`
`~~
`(New) A computer program product according to Claim.Jf( wherein the
`
`computer readable program code means for establishing a user desktop includes computer
`
`readable program code means for distributing application launcher programs associated with
`
`each of the set of the plurality of application programs for which the user is authorized to the
`
`client and wherein the computer readable program code means for receiving a selection
`
`includes computer readable program code means for receiving the selection from a one of the
`
`application launcher programs which is associated with the selected one of the plurality of
`
`application programs and wherein the computer readable program code means for
`
`determining a license availability includes computer readable program code means,
`
`associated with one of the application launcher program~ associated with the selected one of
`
`the plurality of application programs, for obtaining the license availability from a license
`
`management server.
`~~
`)t6.
`license management server is the server.
`
`~~
`(New) A computer program product according to Claim,A wherein the
`
`~
`A
`
`~
`(New) A computer program product according to Claim J1' wherein the
`
`plurality of application programs are installed on a network drive accessible to the server.
`
`~\
`j1{.
`computer readable program code means for receiving at the server event Jogging information
`
`,~
`(New) A computer program product according to Claim)'.(further comprising
`
`from the instance of the selected one of the plurality of application programs.
`
`I _ .. -,
`v{ )
`
`

`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Se1ial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 7
`
`~o/ -
`t,\\
`(N~•~) A computer program product according to Claim;(further comprising
`JI(
`computer readable program code means for providing the received event Jogging information
`to a network management server associated with the server. ~
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicants appreciate the thorough examination of the present application as is
`
`evidenced by the Action. All the pending claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 6,189,051 to Oh et al. ("Oh") in view of
`
`United States Patent No. 6, 115,040 to Bladow et al. ("Bladow"). Applicants respectfully
`
`submit, however, that the claims are in condition for allowance, which is respectfully
`
`requested. The present invention and the references relied on in the Action will first be
`
`briefly discussed.
`
`The Invention:
`
`The present invention provides methods, systems and computer program products for
`
`management of application programs on a network including a server supporting client
`
`stations. The server provides applications on-demand to a user logging in to a client
`
`supported by the server. Mobility is provided to the user and hardware portability is provided
`
`by establishing a user desktop interface responsive to a login request which presents to the
`
`user a desktop screen through a web browser interface. The desktop accesses and downloads
`
`selected application programs from the server responsive to a request from the user, such as
`
`the selection of an icon associated with the application program which is displayed on the
`
`user desktop screen at the client. The application program is then provided from the server
`
`and executed at the client. The application program may further be customized to conform to
`
`the user's preferences and may also provide for license use management by determining
`
`license availability before initiating execution of the application program. Accordingly,
`
`applications are provided on-demand to users independent of the device used to access the
`
`server.
`
`In other words, a variety of application programs can be maintained at the server, and
`')n--ins1wic.~ .. Qf$l...seleeteao~-~-~f the application programs may be provided as n:eded to a user
`
`

`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 8
`
`logged onto a client device. The provided instance of the application may then be executed at
`
`the client device to process the request of the user. Thus, individual application programs are
`
`provided to the user as needed where they are executed at a client device rather than having
`
`the application program execute at the server responsive to a request from a user.
`
`Furthermore, a customized user interface desktop is provided at the client device which
`
`displays the applications the user is authorized to access.
`
`The Oh Reference:
`
`The Oh reference relates to systems and methods for manufacturing hard disk
`
`masters. The systems and methods described in Oh are directed to computer system
`
`manufacturing where programs need to be stored on different models of computers for sale to
`
`customers. More particularly, when "a computer system is sold to a consumer, the hard disk
`
`in which the programs are stored is installed therein. Therefore, it is necessary for a
`
`computer manufacturer to copy programs into the hard disk of the computer." (Oh, Col. 1,
`
`lines 29-32). As described by Oh, the known methods,' which relied on CDs and diskettes for
`
`installation, were difficult to manage and included a high risk of errors due to the manual
`
`nature of the process. (Oh, Col. 1, lines 36-43). Thus, Oh proposed downloading the
`
`programs from a server computer to a client computer where a hard disk master is generated
`
`which is used "for copying a hard disk loaded in a computer system." (Oh, Col. 2, lines 10-
`
`18). Oh further recognized that the contents of the "hard disk master [may] differ according
`
`to the model" of the computer being manufactured. (Oh, Col. 2, lines 6-8). Thus, the system
`
`of Oh downloads selected programs and drivers from the server to the hard disk master
`
`manufacturing computer and executes an associated setup file provided by the server to
`
`generate the hard disk master. (Oh, Col. 4, line 62- Col. 5, line 6; Col. 5, lines 34-40).
`
`The Bladow Reference:
`
`The Bladow reference relates to a graphical user interface for web enabled
`
`applications. In particular, a system is provided for interfacing applications executing on a
`
`client to web server based applications resources. Log-in based security procedures are
`
`provided to control access to various server based resources by individual users. More
`
`particularly, users are provided a "home page 250 which is download after the authentication
`
`via the logon page. The home page 250 comprises icons 252a-h for each application services
`
`

`
`.. .
`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 9
`·
`
`as well as an application tool bar 254 for invoking services." (Bladow, Col. 14, lines 46-49).
`
`However, the server based resources are merely accessed by transmission of an "HTTPS
`
`request" which is passed on to the server resource provider if the user is authorized to use the
`
`resource. (Bladow, Col. 7, line 46 to Col. 8, line 27). The server then provides the "service
`
`requested by the client." (Bladow, Col. 8, lines 30-38; Col. 9, lines 15-22). The data
`
`generated by the service at the server is then translated to a client format and returned to the
`
`requesting client. (Bladow, Col. 9, lines 22-33).
`
`The Claims Are Patentable Over the Cited References:
`
`Among other things, the Action asserts that Oh teaches "receiving at the server a
`
`selection of one of the plurality of application programs from the user desktop interface, and
`
`providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application programs to the client
`
`for execution responsive to the selection." (Action, p.1). Applicants submit that Oh
`
`provides no such disclosure or suggestion. Furthermore, Applicants submit that Oh cannot
`
`properly be combined with Bladow in the manner relied on by the Action.
`
`With respect to the recitation in Claim 1 of "receiving at the server a selection of~
`
`of the plurality of application programs from the user desktop," there is no such disclosure
`or suggestion in Oh. In fact, the system of Oh, which is intended to allow creation of a hard
`
`disk master, requests all of the programs which are to be provided in the hard disk master.
`
`There would be no reason to request an individual program in the system of Oh as the object
`
`is to generate the entirety of the hard disk image which is to be placed on the hard disk of
`
`each of the computers being manufactured. Furthermore, no user desktop is needed to
`
`provide the selection as there is no need to designate only individual application programs to
`
`the server. Instead, all of the application programs associated with a particular hard disk
`
`master (which in tum may be used in the manufacture of a particular model of computer), are
`
`requested by the client computer, thus, requiring no such on demand request interface
`
`providing for selection of a single application program.
`
`Furthermore, the present invention recites in Claim 1 that "an instance of the selected
`
`one of the plurality of application programs [is provided] to the client for execution
`
`responsive to the selection." In contrast, the programs provided from the server of Oh are
`-.
`
`

`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 10
`
`used to build a har<l disk master, they are not executed. The hard disk master is, presumably,
`
`then used to write the hard disk of computers sold to customers who may ultimately execute
`
`the programs provided on the hard disk of their computers. In other words, Oh relates to an
`
`application programming environment in which applications are installed in advance and
`
`later run on individual computers, not to a client-server environment, such as recited in Claim
`
`1, where instances of an application are provided to requesting users on demand only after
`
`users have logged in and had their authority to use a program verified.
`
`Bladow fails to overcome these deficiencies of Oh as it describes an environment in
`
`which server resources accessed by an authorized user are executed at the server with the
`
`results returned to the client. (Bladow, Col. 9, lines 18-33). Bladow does not disclose or
`
`suggest providing an instance of such server resources to the client for execution by the
`
`client. Therefore, as various of the recitations of Claim l are not taught by any of the cited
`
`references, the pending rej ection should be withdrawn: Claims 2-14 should also be allowed .
`
`at least based on their dependency from Claim 1. Furthermore, Claims 21 and 23 are system
`
`and computer program product claims corresponding to method Claim 1 and are allowable
`
`for the same reasons discussed with reference to Claim 1.
`
`The rejections should also be withdrawn as the Oh and Bladow references cannot
`
`properly be combined in the manner relied on. by the Action. To establish a prima facie case
`
`of obviousness, the prior art reference or references when combined must teach or suggest all
`
`the recitations of the claim, and there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the
`
`references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. M.P.E.P. § 2143. The mere
`
`fact that references can be combined or modified does not render the resultant combination
`
`obvious unless the prior art also suggests the desirability of the combination. M.P .E.P. §
`
`2143.01, citing Jn re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As recently
`
`emphasized by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, to support combining references,
`
`evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine must be clear and particular,
`
`and this requiren:ient for clear and particular evidence is not met by broad and conclusory
`
`statements about the teachings of references. In re Dembiczak, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1614, 1617
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999). In an even more recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`

`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 11
`
`Circuit has stated that, to support combining or modifying references, there must be
`
`particular evidence from the prior art as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge
`
`of the claimed invention, would have selected these components for combination in the
`
`manner claimed. In re Kotzab, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Respectfully, the Action fails to meet the requirements for a showing of obviousness
`
`under § 103. First, as discussed above, the cited combination of references fails to teach all
`
`of the recitations of the claims. Furthermore, there is no basis for combining the hard disk
`
`master manufacturing system of Oh with the graphical user interface ofBladow. There is no
`
`motivation or incentive to provide a substantially "real time" selection of individual
`
`application programs as described in Bladow in the environment of Oh where a group of
`
`programs are selected to generate a hard disk master for a particular model of computer. As
`
`such, there is clearly no particular evidence in the cited art supporting the motivation alleged
`
`by the Action of providing "a flexible and modular approach to implementing each of the
`
`client applications as need arises." (Action, p. 4). Accordingly, the rejections should be
`
`withdrawn for at least these additional reasons.
`
`Various of the Dependent Claims Are Separately Patentable
`
`As discussed above, each of the dependent claims is patentable based on its
`
`dependence on Claim 1. In addition, various of the dependent claims are separately
`
`patentable based on the recitations therein. For example, contrary to the assertion of the
`
`Action, Oh does not teach distributing "application launcher programs associated with each
`
`of the set of the plurality of application programs" as recited in Claim 3. To the extent this
`
`rejection is maintained, Applicants respectfully request a citation by the Examiner of the
`
`portions of Oh relied on for this rejection as Applicants can find nothing in the portions of Oh
`
`cited in paragraph 7 of the Action on which the Examiner could be relying as support for the
`
`rejection of Claim 3. Claims 4-6 depend from Claim 3 and are likewise allowable for the
`
`reasons Claim 3 is allowable. Furthermore, as with the rejection of Claim 3, Applicants are
`
`unable to identify what discussion the Examiner is relying on for the recitations related to the
`
`"configurable user preference information" recited in Claim 4 and, thus, Applicants request
`
`clarification from the Examiner of the basis for such rejections if they are not withdrawn.
`
`

`
`....
`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 12
`
`With respect to Claims 9-11, Applicants again can find no discussion of the "license
`
`availability" recitations of these Claims in the cited portions of Oh or in Bladow. While
`
`Bladow does discuss determining whether a user is authorized to access a resource, this is
`
`distinct from the recitations of these claims related to verifying license availability. For
`
`example, a user could be authorized to use an application but five instances of the application
`
`may already be executing and the server may only have a five concurrent user license. Thus,
`
`an authorized user could be denied an instance of a requested application because no license
`
`is available. (See, e.g., Specification, p. 18, lines 1-9; p. 21, line 31 top. 22, line 9).
`
`Accordingly, these claims are also patentable for at least these additional reasons.
`The Newly Added Claims Are Patentable
`
`Newly added dependent Claims 24-36 are system claims depending on Claim 21
`
`which correspond generally to Claims 2-14. Newly added dependent Claims 37-49 are
`
`computer program product claims depending on Claim 23 which correspond generally to
`
`Claims 2-14. Accordingly, these claims are patentable'for the reasons discussed above with
`
`reference to Claims 2-14.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The outstanding rejections have all been addressed by the remarks above and the
`
`recitations of the pending claims are neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited combination
`
`of references. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request allowance of the of the present
`
`application and passing the application to issue.
`
`Registration No. 36,8 1
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`Myers Bigel Sibley & Sajovec
`P.O. Box 37428
`Raleigh, North Carolina 27627
`Telephone: 919/854-1400
`Facsimile: 919/854-1401
`
`

`
`· '\
`
`RECE\VEO
`JUN 7 2001
`1echno\ogy center 21 oo
`
`In re: Cox, et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 13
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service as first class mail in an
`envelope addressed to: ommissioner for P tents, Washington, DC 20231, on May 31, 2001 .
`
`..
`
`. ff\
`
`;
`
`Michele P. McMahan
`Date of Signature: May 31, 2001
`
`i\ ;,'
`
`. , .
`.!-·
`
`..- .
`
`• /
`
`<
`
`-··-~·-· ·- -- ... --- ...