Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2020001625 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021)

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.
15/782,298 10/12/2017 Manuvir Das 332986-US-
CNT2 (M15.015C2
3657
148708 7590 05/03/2021
Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC
50 Locust Avenue
New Canaan, CT 06840
EXAMINER
HAGOS, EYOB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 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):
microsoft@bmtpatent.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANUVIR DAS, SUDARSHAN YADAV,
ARVIND KANDHARE, JIMMY NARANG, RANJANA RATHINAM,
SRINIVAS DUVVURI, and AMIT LAL
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–21. 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. Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as
the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed May 29, 2019, 2.
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to “methods and systems for provisioning
remote desktops in a cloud based infrastructure while maintaining user
personalization.” Specification (“Spec.”) filed October 12, 2017, ¶ 3.2
Appellant discloses that remote access systems enable users to remotely
access resources hosted on those systems, including executing programs and
transmitting signals indicative of a user interface to connecting clients. Id.
¶ 2. Each connecting client can transmit user input to the systems and may
be provided a session with a set of resources applying this input. Id. Clients
may open and close remote access connections and may change settings and
preferences in each session. Id. However, in cloud-based systems, because a
user may not always reconnect to the same virtual desktop, the user may be
assigned a virtual hard disk which includes the user’s state, personal data,
and personalization information. Id. ¶ 3. When the user disconnects from the
remote desktop, the virtual hard disk is dismounted from the current virtual
machine endpoint and may be later associated with a new session assigned
to a different virtual machine endpoint. Id. ¶¶ 3, 72.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a request for a remote desktop session;
assigning a virtual machine endpoint to the requested
remote desktop session, the virtual machine endpoint selected
from a pool of available resources and being different than a

2 This Decision also cites to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated
January 24, 2019, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated November 1, 2019,
and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed December 31, 2019.
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

3
previous virtual machine endpoint that was assigned to a prior
remote desktop session;
migrating, by a computing device, previously saved user
state data generated during the prior remote desktop session at
the previous virtual machine endpoint to the remote desktop
session assigned to the virtual machine endpoint, the previously
saved user state data saved as a virtual profile comprising user
preference and personal data of a desktop configuration; and
updating, by the computing device, the remote desktop
session assigned to the virtual machine endpoint based on the
migrated user state data generated during the prior remote
desktop session.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Rivera US 8,127,017 B2 Feb. 28, 2012
Margulis US 8,200,796 B1 June 12, 2012
Amir Husain US 2008/0201711 A1 Aug. 21, 2008
Phillips US 2011/0055299 A1 Mar. 3, 2011
de Waal US 2012/0005675 A1 Jan. 5, 2012

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
1. Claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 13–21 as unpatentable over Rivera in view
of Amir Husain, Margulis, and Phillips; and
2. Claims 3 and 12 as unpatentable over Rivera in view of Amir
Husain, Margulis, and Phillips, and further in view of de Waal.
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering
Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections for substantially
the fact findings, reasoning, and conclusions set forth in the Final Office
Action and the Examiner’s Answer, which we adopt as our own. We offer
the following for emphasis only.
Rejection 1: Obviousness of claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 13–21
Appellant argues claims 1 and 2 separately, but does not otherwise
separately argue the remaining claims which, therefore, stand or fall with
representative claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Rivera discloses a method as recited in claim
1, except for steps of: 1) assigning a virtual machine endpoint to the
requested remote desktop session from a pool of available resources that is
different than a previous virtual machine endpoint that was assigned in a
prior remote desktop session; 2) migrating previously saved user state data
generated during the prior remote desktop session at the previous virtual
machine endpoint to the new remote desktop session assigned to the virtual
machine endpoint, wherein the previously saved user state data is saved as a
virtual profile comprising user preference and personal data of a desktop
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

5
configuration; and 3) updating the new remote desktop session assigned to
the virtual machine endpoint based on the migrated user state data generated
during the prior remote desktop session. Final Act. 3–4.
However, the Examiner finds that Amir Husain teaches assigning a
virtual machine endpoint to a requested remote desktop session from a pool
of available resources, wherein the assigned virtual machine endpoint is
different than a previous virtual machine endpoint that was assigned to a
prior remote desktop session and includes previously saved user state data
such as user preferences and personal data of a desktop configuration. Id. at
4. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Rivera’s method to include assigning a virtual machine endpoint to the
requested remote desktop session from a pool of available resources that is
different than a previous virtual machine endpoint that was assigned in a
prior remote desktop session because doing so would facilitate assigning
users to available virtual machines. Id. at 5.
The Examiner finds that Margulis teaches migrating previously saved
user state data generated during the prior remote desktop session at the
previous virtual machine endpoint to the remote desktop session assigned to
the virtual machine endpoint; and updating the remote desktop session
assigned to the virtual machine endpoint based on the migrated user state
data generated during the prior remote desktop session. Final Act. 5. As
such, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Rivera’s method to include migrating previously saved user state data
generated during the prior remote desktop session to the remote desktop
session assigned to the virtual machine endpoint in order to instantiate user’s
defined remote desktop when connected to any assigned virtual machine. Id.
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

6
The Examiner further finds that Phillips teaches saving previously
saved user state data as a virtual profile including the user’s preference and
personal data of a configuration. Final Act. 7. The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to have modified Rivera’s method such that the
previously save user state data is saved as a virtual profile in order to
efficiently store user data changes. Id.
Appellant argues that the combination of Rivera, Amir Husain,
Margulis, and Phillips fails to “describe migrating previously saved user
state data generated during a prior remote desktop session at a previous
virtual machine endpoint to a remote desktop session assigned to a different
virtual machine endpoint.” Appeal Br. 10. In particular, Appellant contends
that this combination fails to describe migrating user desktop preferences
among virtual machines, much less migrating a virtual profile comprising
user preferences and personal data of a desktop configuration generated
during a prior remote desktop session at a previous virtual machine to a
remote desktop session assigned to a different virtual machine endpoint. Id.
Appellant concedes that Rivera teaches a system which can activate
previously disconnected sessions, but argues that Rivera does not describe
migrating sessions or user desktop preferences among different virtual
machine endpoints. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant asserts that Amir Husain
describes assigning a user session to a dedicated virtual machine on an
exclusive basis, but does not teach migrating sessions or migrating user
desktop preferences among different virtual machine endpoints. Id.
Appellant further argues that Margulis fails to describe or suggest
migrating previously saved user state data generated during a prior remote
desktop session at a previous virtual machine endpoint to a remote desktop
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

7
session assigned to a new virtual machine endpoint, wherein the previously
saved user state data includes user preference and personal data of a desktop
configuration. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant contends that Margulis, Figure 4,
shows the user state tightly coupled to the respective virtual machines, such
that each virtual machine includes its own user state and does not migrate a
user state between virtual machines. Id. Appellant asserts that Margulis
describes three migrations: 1) a virtual machine may either run on a shared
hardware platform or be migrated to another hardware platform; 2) a virtual
desktop environment may be migrated from one remote terminal to another
as a user changes locations; and 3) a virtual machine may be migrated from
one machine to another for dynamic workload balancing. Id. at 13–14.
However, Appellant argues that none of Margulis’ migrations refer to
migrating user state data of a previous remote desktop session from one
virtual machine endpoint to another virtual machine endpoint. Id. at 14–15.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding Rivera and
Amir Husain.3 In particular, the Examiner finds that the combination of
Rivera and Amir Husain provides a method of assigning a virtual machine
endpoint to a requested remote desktop session from a pool of available
resources that is different than a previous virtual machine endpoint that was

3 Appellant disputes, for the first time in the Reply Brief, the Examiner’s
finding that Amir Husain describes assigning a virtual machine endpoint to a
requested desktop session that is different than a previous virtual machine
endpoint assigned to a prior desktop session. Reply Br. 4. However,
Appellant has not shown any good cause explaining why this argument was
not raised in the Appeal Brief and, therefore, this argument has been waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41.
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

8
assigned in a prior remote desktop session. Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 4–5. The
Examiner also finds, without dispute, that Rivera’s sessions are configured
with user’s personal preferences and authorization privileges. Ans. 5. The
Examiner further finds, without dispute, that Amir Husain teaches that the
system supports non-exclusive users, i.e., users that are assigned to shared
virtual machines on a non-exclusive basis such that a user may be assigned a
different virtual machine than assigned during a previous session. Id. at 5–6.
And the Examiner finds, without dispute, that Amir Husain teaches that
previously saved user state data including user preference and person data of
a desktop configuration. Id. at 6–7.
The Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Rivera and Amir
Husain fails to teach migrating previously saved user state data generated
during a prior remote desktop session at the previous virtual machine
endpoint, as a virtual profile, to the remote desktop session assigned to the
new virtual machine endpoint, and updating the remote desktop session
assigned to the new virtual machine endpoint based on the migrated user
state data. Final Act. 5. The Examiner, however, relies on Margulis and
Phillips in support of the conclusion that it would have been obvious to
migrate previously saved user state data, as a virtual profile, from a prior
session to the new session, and updating the new session with this migrated
data. Id. at 5–7.
Although Appellant contends that Margulis fails to teach migrating
user state data of a previous remote desktop session from one virtual
machine endpoint to another virtual machine endpoint, Appellant concedes
that Margulis teaches that users may customize their desktop environment
with user preferences such that when a new session is instantiated, the user
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

9
is authenticated and the previously saved user preferences corresponding to
the system state are loaded. Appeal Br. 12. In addition, Appellant concedes
that Margulis teaches that the virtual desktop environment, representing the
user state data may be migrated from one remote terminal to another as the
user changes locations, so that a user in a new session can resume right
where they left off in a previous session. Id. When combined with the
teachings of Rivera and Amir Husain, Margulis’ teaching suggests migrating
user state data to the remote desktop session assigned to the virtual machine
endpoint, wherein this virtual machine endpoint is different than a previous
virtual machine endpoint that was assigned in a prior remote desktop
session.
In addition, the Examiner finds, without dispute, that Phillips
discloses previously saved user state data is saved as a virtual profile
comprising the user’s preferences and personal data of a configuration. Final
Act. 7; Ans. 9. When combined with the teachings of Rivera, Amir Husain,
and Margulis, Phillips’ teaching suggests that the migrated user state data be
saved as a user’s virtual profile comprising the user’s preferences and
personal data of a configuration. Accordingly, based on the record before us,
a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the
method of claim 1 would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan based on
the combined teachings of Rivera, Amir Husain, Margulis, and Phillips,
including migrating previously saved user state data, representing the user’s
virtual profile, generated during a prior remote desktop session at a previous
virtual machine endpoint to a remote desktop session assigned to a new
virtual machine endpoint, wherein user profile includes user preference and
personal data of a desktop configuration.
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

10
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 4–10, and 13–21.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further requires that the previously
saved user state data is saved independently of the assigned virtual machine
endpoint and the requested remote desktop session.
The Examiner finds that Margulis discloses wherein the previously
saved user state is saved independently of the assigned virtual machine
endpoint and the requested remote desktop session. Final Act. 7–8.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to save
the previously saved user state data independently of the assigned virtual
machine endpoint and the requested remote desktop session in the method of
Rivera, as modified in view of Amir Husain and Phillips, in order to
instantiate the user’s defined remote desktop when connected to any virtual
machine. Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that Margulis fails to describe saving the user state
data independent of the assigned virtual machine because Margulis instead
independently saves the system state, corresponding to the operating system,
drivers, and applications of a user, to a respective virtual machine and is thus
referring to the user’s state with respect to other users, and not the desktop
state with respect to a virtual machine endpoint. Appeal Br. 15–16.
This argument is not persuasive of reversible error because, in
combination with Rivera and Amir Husain, Margulis’ teaching suggests that
the user state data be saved independent of the assigned virtual machine in
order to enable the user to be assigned, and the user’s previously saved state
data be migrated, to a virtual machine in a new remote desktop session that
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

11
is different from a virtual machine assigned to the user in a prior remote
desktop session. As discussed above, Appellant does not contest the
Examiner’s findings regarding Rivera and Amir Husain. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Rivera discloses “loading previously saved user state
data generated during the prior remote desktop session at the previous virtual
machine endpoint, the previously saved user state data saved as a profile
comprising user preference and personal data of a desktop configuration.”
Ans. 12. The Examiner also finds that Amir Husain teaches assigning a
virtual machine endpoint to a requested remote desktop session from a pool
of available resources, wherein the assigned virtual machine endpoint is
different than a previous virtual machine endpoint that was assigned to a
prior remote desktop session and includes previously saved user state data
such as user preferences and personal data of a desktop configuration. Final
Act. 4; Ans. 12–13. Moreover, the Examiner finds, without dispute, that
Phillips also discloses saving previous user state data including
personalization information. Id. at 13. Thus, an ordinary artisan would have
readily recognized that, if previously saved user state data is to be migrated
to a new virtual machine and remote desktop session from a prior different
virtual machine and remote desktop session as Amir Husain suggests, such
data must be saved independently of the assigned virtual machine endpoint
and the requested remote desktop session. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see also In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (explaining a reference stands for all of
Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

12
the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill
in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom); In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of
a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 2.
Rejection 2: Obviousness of claims 3 and 12
Appellant does not separately argue the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 3 and 12. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rivera in view of Amir Husain, Margulis, and Phillips,
alone or further in view of de Waal, is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–10,
13–21
103(a) Rivera, Amir
Husain, Margulis,
Phillips
1, 2, 4–10,
13–21

Appeal 2020-001625
Application 15/782,298

13
3, 12 103(a) Rivera, Amir
Husain, Margulis,
Phillips
3, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED