Ex Parte Apacible et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 2004

08980585 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHNSON R. APACIBLE, KIM STEBBENS, and KWAN TERENCE
_____________
Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-35, which are all of the claims pending in the present
application.
The disclosed invention relates to the logging of network
server data relating to client requests in which end users of a
server program can create logging modules having a predefined
interface defined by the server program. Logging modules that
have been designated by a system administrator are called by the
Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
2
server program in response to client requests and potential log
data is passed to the logging modules. Each logging module makes
its own decisions on log entries and recording formats, thereby
removing constraints on end users to given formats or sets of
logging criteria.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A network server comprising:
one or more data processors;
a network server program that is executable by said one
or more data processors to receive and process data requests
from network clients; and
the network server program being configurable by a
system administrator to provide log data to any one or more
of a plurality of executable logging modules designated by
the system administrator, wherein the executable logging
modules selectively log the log data in accordance with
different logging criteria.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Maritzen et al. (Maritzen) 5,899,990 May 04, 1999
(filed Mar. 31, 1997)
Abraham et al. (Abraham) 5,983,270 Nov. 09, 1999
(filed Apr. 02, 1997)
Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
1 The Appeal Brief was filed March 12, 2002 (Paper No. 25). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated June 5, 2002 (Paper No. 26), a Reply Brief was
filed August 9, 2002 (Paper No. 27), which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner as indicated in the communication dated August 16, 2002 (Paper No.
28).
3
Claims 1-35, all of the appealed claims, stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness,
the Examiner offers Abraham alone with respect to claims 1, 5-7,
and 11, and adds Maritzen to Abraham with respect to claims 2-4,
8-10, and 12-35.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
4
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as recited in claims
1-35. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1073-74, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive
at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential part
Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
5
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of appealed independent claims 1, 5, and 11, Appellants assert
that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are not taught
or suggested by the applied Abraham reference. In particular,
Appellants contend (Brief, pages 13 and 14) that the Examiner has
not pointed to anything in the disclosure of Abraham that would
correspond to the presently claimed logging modules which are
designated by a system administrator to selectively log data in
accordance with independent criteria.
After reviewing the arguments of record from Appellants and
the Examiner, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Briefs. Our interpretation of the
disclosure of Abraham coincides with that of Appellants, i.e., we
find no basis for the Examiner’s conclusion that the database
tables illustrated in Abraham’s Figures 9A-9D and 25A-25B
correspond to the claimed logging modules. As asserted by
Appellants, there is no indication in the disclosure of Abraham
that these database tables are designated by an administrator to
Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
6
perform logging according to independent criteria or, for that
matter, perform any logging function at all.
We recognize that the Examiner (Answer, pages 4 and 11) has
clarified the stated position concerning the alleged
correspondence of Abraham’s disclosure to the claimed logging
modules by calling attention to the “logging threads” discussed
at columns 46 and 47 in Abraham and illustrated in Figure 23. In
our view, the Examiner at this point has correctly recognized
that it is the filter engine 78 in Abraham which is performing a
logging function. We fail to see, however, where the Examiner
has established any support for the conclusion that Abraham’s
“logging threads” are logging modules which are designated by a
system administrator to perform logging according to selected
independent criteria, features which are present in each of the
independent claims 1, 5, and 11. As asserted by Appellants
(Reply Brief, page 2), from the disclosure of Abraham, the
“logging threads” appear to be nothing more than transactions or
messages which are started by filter executive 76 and which are
common to any multi-threaded operating system.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that even
assuming, arguendo, that proper motivation existed for the
artisan to modify the disclosure of Abraham in the manner
Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
7
suggested by the Examiner (Answer, page 5), all of the claim
limitations would not be taught or suggested by the applied
Abraham reference. Accordingly, it is our opinion that, since
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
claims 1, 5, and 11, as well as claims 2-4, 6-10, and 12-14
dependent thereon, cannot be sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 2-4, 8-10, and 12-35 in which Maritzen is
added to the Abraham reference, we do not sustain this rejection
as well. The Maritzen reference has been applied by the Examiner
to address the interface features of several of the rejected
claims. We find nothing in this reference, however, which would
overcome the innate deficiencies of Abraham as discussed supra.
In our view, even if the applied references could be combined in
the manner suggested by the Examiner, the end result would not
arrive at the claimed invention since, for all of the previously
discussed reasons, there would be no executable logging modules
that are configured to log data in accordance with different
criteria as specifically set forth, for example, in independent
claims 15, 21, and 25. Similarly, we agree with Appellants that
there is no indication from the Examiner as to how and in what
Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
8
manner the Abraham reference would be modified with Maritzen so
as to address the particular limitations set forth in independent
claims 30 and 33, each of which requires the setting and/or
returning of logging configurations in accordance with the
specified interfaces.
Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
9
In conclusion, we have not sustained the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of any of the claims on appeal. Therefore,
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR:hh
Appeal No. 2002-2297
Application No. 08/980,585
10
LEE & HAYES, PLLC
421 W. RIVERSIDE AVE. STE. 500
SPOKANE, WA 99201