0' PE
`
`.... ('! -
`~ -
`
`MAl 1 6 1ll1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`/J-r(
`PATENT ff1S,
`f 113
`~,,
`_5, 'JJ4'2--
`l v
`
`•
`
`In re: Cox et al. .
`Group Art Unit: 2158
`Serial No.: 09/21·1,528
`Examiner: Wiley, D.
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`For: METHODS, SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS
`FOR CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF APPLICATION PROGRAMS ON A
`NETWORK
`
`BOX AF
`Commissioner for Patents
`Washington, DC 20231
`
`Date: May 16, 2002
`
`RECEIVED
`MAY 2 1 2002
`Technology Center 2100
`
`APPELLANTS' BRIEF ON APPEAL UNDER 37 C.F.R. §1.192
`
`Sir:
`
`This Appeal Brief is filed pursuant to the "Notice of Appeal to the Board of Patent
`
`Appeals and Interferences" mailed 10 April 2002.
`
`The real party in interest is assignee International Business Machines Corporation,
`
`Real Party In Interest
`
`Armonk, New York.
`
`Appellants are aware of no appeals or interferences which would be affected by the
`present appeal.
`
`Related Appeals
`
`Status of Claims
`
`Appellants appeal the final rejection of Claims 1- 14, 21and23-49, which, as of the
`
`filing date of this brief, remain under consideration. These claims were finally rejected in the
`
`Final Official Action of February 22, 2002 ("Final Action") and the Advisory Action of April
`
`4, 2002 ("Advisory Action"). A copy of the claims as they stand on appeal is attached hereto
`
`as Appendix A
`
`_ ....... " .. r.
`
`IPR2017-00184
`UNIFIED EX1023
`
`

`
`· ...
`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page2
`
`Status of Amendments
`
`The attac~ed Appendix A presents Claims 1-14, 21and23-49 as they currently stand.
`
`No amendments were submitted which were not entered.
`
`Summary of the Invention
`
`The claimed invention, as recited in Claims 1-14, 21 and 23-49, 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(cid:173)
`
`demand to a user logging in to a client supported by the server. Mobility and hardware
`
`portability are provided by establishing a user desktop interface responsive to a login request
`
`that 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. For example, an icon associated with the application program, which is
`
`displayed on the user desktop screen at the client, may be selected. An "instance of the
`
`selected" application program is then provided from the server for execution at the client.
`
`Thus, the application programs may be maintained at ~e server and provided to clients when
`
`needed for execution.
`
`As defined in the specification of the present application:
`
`the term "application program" generally refers to the code associated with
`the underlying proiram functions, for example, Lotus Notes or a terminal
`emulator program. However, it is to be understood that the application program
`will preferably be included as part of the application launcher which will further
`include the code associated with managing usage of the application program on a
`network according to the teachings of the present invention. Further it is to be
`understood that, as used herein, the term "application launcher program" may
`refer to the entire program provided by a software vendor or to merely a portion
`thereof distributed to a client to perform particular operations. For example, the
`application launcher program distributed to initially populate the user
`desktop preferably does not include the code associated with the underlying
`application program and obtaining preferences which may only be distributed to
`the client later when execution of the application program is requested. The
`application launcher program distributed to populate the user desktop may only
`include a URL and an associated ICON and, possibly, code to allow obtaining of
`user identification and password information. Memory usage on the client
`stations may thereby be limited.
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211 ,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 3
`
`(Specification, pp. 22-23)(emphasis added). In other words, the "application program" is
`
`an application level software program, such as Lotus Notes, while the "application
`
`launcher program" is provided to "initially populate the user desktop" and need not
`
`include the application program code. The application launcher program interacts with
`
`the desktop, such as a user browser interface, while an instance of the application
`
`program is requested through the desktop but executes locally at the client as a separate
`
`application from the browser interface. For example, Lotus Notes would not execute
`
`within the browser window.
`
`The present invention may, therefore, be used so that a variety of application
`
`programs can be maintained at the server, and an instance of a selected one of the application
`
`programs m ay be provided as needed to a user 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 (on(cid:173)
`
`demand) where they are executed at a client device rather than having the application
`
`program executed 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.
`
`Issues
`
`1.
`
`Are Claims 1-14, 21 and 23-49 properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Rose (U.S. Patent No. 5,708,709) in view of Win et al. (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,182,1 42)?
`
`Grouping of Claims
`
`For appeal, the claims may be grouped together as follows:
`
`Group I: Claims 1-14, 21and23-49
`
`Claims of Group I do not all stand or fall together as Appellants submit that
`
`dependent Claims 3, 10-11, 25, 32-33, 38 and 45-46, which stand or fall together, are
`
`separately patentable and dependent Claims 4-5, 26-27 and 39-40, which stand or fall
`
`together, are separately patentable.
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page4
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Argument
`
`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 In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1430 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As stated 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 requirement 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). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has
`
`also 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 componel)tS for combination in the manner
`
`claimed. In re Kotzab, 55, U.S.P.Q.2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Furthermore, when
`
`relying on general knowledge to negate patentability, and Examiner must articulate and place
`
`this knowledge on the record. See Jn re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,1345, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1430, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`II.
`
`The Group I Claims Are Patentable Over Rose and Win
`
`The Group I claims stand rejected as obvious in light of Rose and Win. Appellants
`
`respectfully submit that the Group I claims are patentable for at least the reasons set forth
`
`below.
`
`Claim 1 of the present application recites:
`
`A method for management of application programs on a network
`1.
`including a server and a client comprising the steps of:
`installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
`receiving at the server a login request from a user at the client;
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 5
`
`establishing a user desktop interface at the client associated with the user
`responsive to the login request from the user, the desktop interface including a
`plurality of display regions associated with a set of the plurality of application
`programs installed at the server for which the user is authorized;
`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.
`
`(Emphasis added). Similar recitations are also found in independent Claims 21 and 23,
`
`which are corresponding system and computer program product claims, respectively.
`
`The rejection asserts that Rose teaches all of the recitations of Claims 1-14, 21 and
`
`23-49 except that Rose fails to teach "the inventive concept of receiving at the server a login
`
`request from the user at the client." (Final Action, p.3). Win is relied on to provide the
`
`missing teaching of the "inventive concept ofreceiving at the server a login request from the
`
`user at the client." (Final Action, p.3).
`
`Respectfully, the Examiner has failed to meet the requirements for a showing of
`
`obviousness under§ 103. As discussed in more detail below, the cited combination of
`
`references fails to teach all of the recitations of the claims. In particular, Rose does not teach
`
`or suggest a "user desktop associated with the user." Furthermore, Win does not teach or
`
`suggest such a user desktop include "a plurality of display regions associated with a set of the
`
`plurality of application programs installed at the server for which the user is authorized."
`
`The rejections should also be withdrawn as the Rose and Win references cannot properly be
`
`combined in the manner relied on in the rejections to arrive at the present invention in light of
`
`the different problems addressed by these references and the lack of motivation for the
`
`combination.
`
`A. Rose Does Not Teach or Suggest a User Desktop Associated With the User
`
`Rose is directed to managed distribution of licensed application programs stored on a
`
`server where the server "maintains control over the program even after the program has been ,
`
`distributed to a client computer." (Rose, Abstract). As described in Rose, for example, with
`
`reference to Figure 2, trial versions of application programs may be selected for downloading
`
`from the server to a client through a browser interface. (Rose, Col. 4, lines 10-17). In other
`
`words, Figure 2 illustrates a display screen at the client showing application programs
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 6
`
`available for downloading from the server. A selected trial version is then prepared, for
`
`downloading to the client, which includes encryption and header information used for license
`
`and usage control after delivery to the client. (Rose, Col. 5; lines 19-52).
`
`The rejections of Claim 1 primarily rely on Figure 7 and the associated description in
`
`Rose as teaching the present invention. However, as is clearly stated in Rose, Figure 7
`
`displays application programs "downloaded to and stored on client computer 102." (Rose,
`
`Col. 6, lines 41-42). A selection of a program from the display of Figure 7 of Rose is a
`
`selection of a locally stored program for execution as contrasted with the selection of an
`
`application program for downloading from a server as illustrated in Figure 2 of Rose. Thus, a
`
`selection of an application program through Figure 7 of Rose does not result in the server
`
`"providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application programs to the
`"
`client for execution" as recited in Claim 1. Furthermore, neither of the displays of Figures 2
`
`or 7 of Rose is "associated with the user responsive to the login request from the user."
`
`While the display of Figure 2 of Rose is established at the client by the server responsive to a
`
`browser request from the client, it is simply a download options window not specific to a
`
`particular user. The download options window is also not established responsive to a login
`
`request as acknowledged by the Final Action. The display of Figure 7 of Rose is directed to
`
`local (client) resident application programs and a selection from the display of Figure 7 does
`
`not initiate "providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application programs
`
`to the client for execution" as the application programs are client resident at the time of the
`
`request. Thus, the rejection of the Group I claims should be reversed for at least these
`
`reasons.
`
`B. The Resources Managed by Win Are Not Application Programs
`
`The deficiencies of Rose are not overcome by Win. Win relates to "controlling access
`
`to information resources," not client-server environment on-demand application program
`
`management. (See Win, Abstract). The managed resources are defined in Win as follows:
`
`A Resource is a source of information, identified by a Uniform Resource Locator
`(URL) and published by a Web server either in a static file formatted using
`Hypertext Markup Language (HML) or in a dynamically generated page created by a
`CGI-based program. Examples ofresources include a Web page, a complete Web
`site, a Web-enabled database, and an applet.
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page7
`
`(Win, Col. 5, lines 21-27)(emphasis added). Thus, the "resources" managed by Win are not
`
`"application pro.grams" as that term is defined in the present application in the excerpt
`
`reproduced above. Similarly, no user desktop interface that includes "a plurality of display
`
`regions associated with a set of the plurality of application programs" is taught or suggested
`
`by Win. It follows that no selection received at the server of such an application program and
`
`no "providing an instance of the selected" application program "to the client for execution" is
`
`taught or suggested by Win. Instead, the only resource selected and provided in Win is a
`
`display for the user, such as a static HTML file or a "dynamically generated page created by a
`
`CGI-based program" of the server. (Win, Col. 5, lines 21-27). Therefore the rejections of the
`
`Group I claims should be reve!"Sed for at least these reasons.
`
`C. Examiner•s Basis For Rejection Appears to Rely on an Unsupportable
`
`Interpretation of Win
`
`The Examiner asserts in the Final Action that Win discloses that the "user is
`
`presented with a customized display showing only those resources (application program)
`
`that the user may access." (Final Action, p. 7)( emphasis in original). The Final Action
`
`further states that the Examiner disagrees with Applicants that the "Winn inventive concept is
`
`not application program as disclose [sic] in their invent*ve concept." (Final Action, p. 7).
`
`The Examiner does not dispute that a "Resource," as defined in the excerpt from Win
`
`reproduced above, does not include an "application program." Instead, the Examiner asserts
`
`that resources "in the art of computer can be broadly defined to include application program."
`
`(Final Action, p. 7). Regardless of whether this statement by the Examiner is accurate, that is
`
`simply not how resources are defined in Win. One of skill in the art, regardless of whether
`
`they considered application programs a "resource" in the art of computers, would not
`
`understand Win as disclosing or suggesting methods for managing application programs in a
`
`client-server environment. Thus, the Examiner's interpretation of Win is unsupportable as it
`
`is directly contrary to statements made in Win itself. Furthermore, the Examiner's reliance on
`
`general knowledge to negate patentability without properly articulating and placing this
`
`knowledge on the record is not supportable. See In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345, 61
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page8
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1430, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the rejections of the Group I claims
`
`should be reversed for at least these reasons.
`
`D. Rose and Win References Cannot Properly be Combined
`
`There is also no basis for combining the methods and system for controlled
`
`downloading of trial versions of programs described in ·Rose with the resource access
`
`management teachings of Win. This is particularly true as Rose and Win are directed to
`
`distinct problems from the client-server application management environment of the present
`
`invention. For example, while Rose does relate to application program distribution from a
`
`server, such operations are for providing trial versions to be repeatedly executed at a client.
`In fact, the encryption and application builder aspects advanced as the invention in
`
`Rose are not even relevant to the environment of the present invention, where instances of the
`
`application programs are provided from a server "on-demand" each time execution is
`
`requested by a user. Rose is, instead, merely a distribution approach for client resident
`
`programs and one of skill in the art would not look to a reference directed to the problems of
`
`such an environment for direction in the distinct art of server based "on-demand" application
`
`programs. Win does not even relate to distribution of application programs but merely to
`
`control of access to server based resources. Thus, there'is no basis to combine Win and Rose
`
`to arrive at the present invention. Accordingly~ the rejections of the Group I claims should be
`
`reversed for at least these additional reasons.
`
`E. Various of the Dependent Claims of Group I Are Separately Patentable
`
`All of Group I claims are allowable for at least the reasons discussed above.
`
`Furthermore, various of these claims are separately patentable. In particular, with reference
`
`to Claims 3, 10-11, 25, 32-33, 38 and 45-46, Rose does not teach distributing "application
`
`launcher programs associated with each of the set of the plurality of application programs. 11
`
`Claims 4-6 depend from Claim 3 and are likewise allowable for the reasons Claim 3 is.
`
`allowable as are the corresponding system and computer program product claims. In
`
`addition, with reference to Claims 4-5, 26-27 and 39-40, Rose does not teach "configurable
`
`user preference information. 11 Accordingly, these claims are also separately patentable for at
`
`least these additional reasons.
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 9
`
`Appellants further note that, despite specific requests from Appellants, the Examiner
`
`failed to provide an explanation of how the cited portions of Rose, relied on in the Final
`
`Action, support the rejections of Claims 3, 10-11 , 25, 32-33, 38 and 45-46 or the rejections of
`
`Claims 4-5, 26-27 and 39-40. Appellants fail to understand how the Examiner was able to
`
`reach the conclusions relied on in the Final Action based on these excerpts.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`In light of the above discussion, Appellants submit that the cited reference
`
`combination does not disclose or suggest all of the recitations of the claims that are at issue
`
`on this appeal. Appellants further submit that the cited references may not be properly
`
`combined to result in the recitations of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, Appellants submit
`
`that the cited references do not render any of the pending claims obvious and, therefore,
`
`request reversal of the pending rejections and allowance of all the claims.
`
`t\ijAarr
`
`Robert W.-hlatz
`Registration No. 36,81
`
`Customer Number:
`
`I llllll lllll lllll lllll lllll llllllll
`20792
`
`PATENT TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF EXPRESS MAILING
`
`Express Mail Label No. EVO l 5809324US
`Date of Deposit: May 16, 2002
`I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service "Express Mail Post
`Office to Addressee" service under 37 CFR I . I 0 on the date indicated above and is addressed to: BOX AF, Commissioner
`fo
`atents, W shington, DC 20 31 .
`
`/
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 10
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`1.
`
`A method for management of application programs on a network including a
`
`server and a client comprising the steps of:
`
`installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
`
`receiving at the server a login request from a user at the client;
`
`establishing a user desktop interface at the client associated with the user responsive
`
`to the login request from the user, the desktop interface including a plurality of display
`
`regions associated with a set of the plurality of application programs installed at the server for
`
`which the user is authorized;
`
`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.
`
`2.
`
`A method according to Claim 1 further comprising the steps of:
`
`maintaining application management information for the plurality of applications at
`
`the server; and
`
`wherein the establishing step includes the step of 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 information.
`
`3.
`
`A method according to Claim 2 wherein the establishing a user desktop step
`
`includes the step of:
`
`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 receiving a selection step includes the step of receiving the selection from
`
`a one of the application launcher programs which is associated with the selected one of the
`
`plurality of application programs.
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 11
`
`4.
`
`A method according to Claim 3 wherein the maintaining step includes the step
`
`of maintaining configurable user preference information for the plurality of application
`
`programs at the server and wherein the providing an instance step includes the step of
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`A method according to Claim 4 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 the step of 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.
`
`6.
`
`A method according to Claim 3 wherein the application launcher programs are
`
`JA V ATM applets and the user desktop interface is a JAVA TM applet executed by a web
`
`browser.
`
`7.
`
`A method according to Claim 1 wherein.the establishing a user desktop step
`
`includes the steps of:
`
`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
`
`providing the user desktop interface and the associated information for the user
`
`desktop interface to the client for display.
`
`8.
`
`A method according to Claim 7 wherein the configuring the user desktop step
`
`includes the step of configuring the user desktop interface not to include display regions
`
`associated with any of the plurality of application programs installed at the server for which
`
`the user is not authorized.
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 12
`
`9.
`
`A method according to Claim 1 wherein the receiving a selection step is
`
`followed by the step of determining a license availability for the selected one of the plurality
`
`of application programs for the user and wherein the providing step includes the step of
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`A method according to Claim 9 wherein the establishing a user desktop step
`
`includes the step of 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 receiving a selection step includes the step of 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 step of determining a license availability includes
`
`the step carried out by the one of the application launcher programs associated with the
`
`selected one of the plurality of application programs of obtaining the license availability from
`
`a license management server.
`
`11.
`
`A method according to Claim 10 wherein the license management server is the
`
`server.
`
`12.
`
`A method according to Claim 1 wherein the plurality of application programs
`
`are installed on a network drive accessible to the server.
`
`13.
`
`A method according to Claim 1 further comprising the step of receiving at the
`
`server event logging information from the instance of the selected one of the plurality of
`
`application programs.
`
`14.
`
`A method according to Claim 13 further comprising the step of providing the
`
`received event logging information to a network management server associated with the
`
`server.
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 13
`
`21.
`
`An application program management system for managing application
`
`programs on a network including a server and a client comprising:
`
`means for installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
`
`means for receiving at the server a login request from a user at the client;
`
`means for establishing a user desktop interface at the client associated with the user
`
`responsive to the login request from the user, the desktop interface including a plurality of
`
`display regions associated with a set of the plurality of application programs installed at the
`
`server for which the user is authorized;
`
`means for receiving at the server a selection of one of the plurality of application
`
`programs from the user desktop interface; and
`
`means for providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application
`programs to the client for execution responsive to the selection.
`
`23.
`
`A computer program product for managing application programs on a network
`
`including a server and a client, the computer program ~roduct comprising:
`
`a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code means
`
`embodied in said medium, said computer-readable program code means comprising:
`
`computer readable program code means for inst4lling a plurality of application
`
`programs at the server;
`
`computer readable program code means for receiving at the server a login request
`
`from a user at the client;
`
`computer readable program code means for establishing a user desktop interface at the
`
`client associated with the user responsive to the login request from the user, the desktop
`
`interface including a plurality of display regions associated with a set of the plurality of
`
`application programs installed at the server for which the user is authorized;
`
`computer readable program code means for receiving at the server a selection of one
`
`of the plurality of application programs from the user desktop interface; and
`
`computer readable program code means for providing an instance of the selected one
`
`of the plurality of application programs to the client for execution responsive to the selection.
`
`24.
`
`A system according to Claim 21 further comprising:
`
`

`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 14
`
`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 information.
`
`25.
`
`A system according to Claim 24 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.
`
`26.
`
`A system according to Claim 25 wherein the means for maintaining includes
`
`means for maintaining configurable user preference information for the plurality of
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`A system according to Claim 26 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 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.
`
`28.
`
`A system according to Claim 25 wherein the application launcher programs
`
`are JAVA TM applets and the user desktop interface is a JAVA™ applet executed by a web
`
`browser.
`
`

`
`.,.
`
`In re: Cox et al.
`Serial No. 09/211,528
`Filed: December 14, 1998
`Page 15
`
`29.
`
`A system according to Claim 21 wherein the means for establishing a user
`
`desktop includes;
`
`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
`
`means for providing the user desktop interface and the associated information for the
`
`user desktop interface to the client for display.
`
`30.
`
`A system according to Claim 29 wherein the means for configuring the user
`
`desktop includes means for configuring the user desktop interface not to include display
`
`regions associated with any of the plurality of application programs installed at the server for
`
`which the user is not authorized.
`
`31.
`
`A system according to Claim 21 further comprising means for determining 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 l icense availability indicates that a
`
`license is not available for the user.
`
`32.
`
`A system according to Claim 31 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
`
`availability includes means, associated with one of the application launcher programs
`
`associated with the selected one of the plur