Ex Parte Casati et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 22, 2012

10302178 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FABIO CASATI, MING-CHIEN SHAN, and UMESHWAR
DAYAL
____________

Appeal 2010-000745
Application 10/302,178
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and DAVID M. KOHUT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000745
Application 10/302,178

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 21-24, 41-43, 52, and 54-62, which are all the
claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a platform for implementing a method
for monitoring and analyzing data that includes a user defined data
repository. A user creates a user defined data structure. The platform
permits a user to define a plurality of user defined metrics associated with
the user defined data structure, and aggregates the plurality of metrics at
different levels of abstraction by utilizing the user defined data structure.
Abstract.
Representative Claim
1. A method for monitoring and analyzing data, comprising:
creating a user defined data model relating to web-based
services and being based on entity definition in an extended
model;
realizing the extended model on at least one data
repository;
defining a plurality of user-defined metrics associated with
the extended model;
defining an aggregation model including relationships
information;
Appeal 2010-000745
Application 10/302,178

3
aggregating the plurality of metrics at different levels of
abstraction by utilizing the relationships information provided
in the aggregation model; and
reporting to a user executions of the web-based services.

Prior Art
ZHAO US 2003/0023712 A1 Jan. 30, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3-9, 21-24, 41-43, 52, and 54-62 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Zhao.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 3.

PRINCIPAL ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that Zhao anticipates claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Zhao anticipates claim 3?

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 21-24, 41-43, 52, and 55-62
Appellants contend that Zhao does not model web-based services as
defined by Appellants’ Specification. App. Br. 15. However, the Examiner
correctly notes that claim 1 does not recite “model web-based services,” but
rather recites “creating a user defined data model relating to web-based
Appeal 2010-000745
Application 10/302,178

4
services.” Ans. 10. The Examiner interprets that the category view data
model of Zhao is “relating to web-based services” within the meaning of
claim 1 since the category view is created from data collected during the
monitoring of a client’s interaction with a web-based service on a web
server. Ans. 10, 12. Appellants’ Specification provides examples of web-
based services, but does not provide a specific definition of web-based
services that excludes the Examiner’s interpretation.
Appellants contend in the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s claim
interpretation is incorrect, because the category view of Zhao is not
customer defined. Reply Br. 2-3. However, paragraph 216 of Zhao
describes user-definable category views for information gathered from end-
user response time components. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
customer view defined by a user describes “creating a user defined data
model” within the meaning of claim 1.
Appellants contend that Zhao does not describe a model that is based
on an entity definition. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 3-4. The Examiner finds that
the category view data model is based on the entity definition of the
corresponding domain. See Ans. 11, citing, inter alia, Zhao ¶¶ [0009] and
[0216]. Paragraph 216 of Zhao describes user-definable category views for
information gathered from end-user response time components. Paragraph 9
discloses that the category views include the line of business of a domain
such as books or auctions, and a site function for a domain such as a
shopping cart. Therefore, we agree that the category views are “based on”
the “entity definition” of the domain, such as the line of business and the site
function within the meaning of claim 1.
Appeal 2010-000745
Application 10/302,178

5
Appellants contend that the claimed “extended model” does not
correspond to the domain view described by Zhao. App. Br. 18; Reply Br.
3-4. The Examiner finds that the domain “entity definition” of Zhao is part
of a domain view of managed domains, which describes an “extended
model” within the meaning of claim 1. See Ans. 14. Appellants have not
provided evidence or persuasive argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding.
It is well settled that mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements,
which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative
value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney argument is not
evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can it
take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549
F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
We, therefore, agree with the findings made by the Examiner and
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner that Zhao describes
“creating a user defined data model relating to web-based services and being
based on entity definition in an extended model” within the meaning of
claim 1.
Appellants contend that Zhao does not realize the extended model on
a data repository. App. Br. 20. The Examiner finds that the database with
the domain topology describes “realizing the extended model on at least one
data repository” within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 15, citing Zhao ¶¶
[0157]-[0163], [0187]. Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive
argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding. Therefore, we agree with the
findings made by the Examiner. We concur with the conclusion reached by
Appeal 2010-000745
Application 10/302,178

6
the Examiner that Zhao describes “realizing the extended model on at least
one data repository” within the meaning of claim 1.
Appellants contend that Zhao does not describe defining an
aggregation model including relationships information as defined by
Appellants’ Specification. App. Br. 20-22. The Examiner finds that the site
view disclosed by Zhao describes “defining an aggregation model including
relationships information” within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 15-16.
Appellants’ Specification gives an explanation of aggregations [0034] and
an example of an aggregation document [0035]. Appellants’ Specification
does not provide a specific definition of “defining an aggregation model
including relationships information” that excludes the Examiner’s
interpretation.
Appellants contend that Zhao does not describe “aggregating the
plurality of metrics at different levels of abstraction by utilizing the
relationships information provided in the aggregation model.” App. Br. 22;
Reply Br. 4. The Examiner finds that the domain view described in ¶¶ [64]
and [187-190] of Zhao discloses “aggregating the plurality of metrics at
different levels of abstraction by utilizing the relationships information
provided in the aggregation model.” Ans. 17-18. Paragraphs187-190
describe the domain view as a collection of derived parameters that represent
status, the domain overview as a list of managed domains, and each
managed domain instance as including a list of managed services.
Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive argument to distinguish
the “aggregating” step of claim 1 from the collection and lists described by
Zhao.
Appeal 2010-000745
Application 10/302,178

7
Appellants contend that Zhao does not describe “reporting to a user
executions of the web-based services.” App. Br. 23. The Examiner finds
that paragraphs 31 and 64 of Zhao disclose reporting performances of web-
based services. Ans. 19. Paragraph 64 describes aggregating data from a
site monitor before a user views the data. Appellants have not provided
evidence or persuasive argument to distinguish the “reporting” step of clam
1 from a user viewing the data described by Zhao. We sustain the rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants have not presented arguments
for separate patentability of claims 4-9, 21-24, 41-43, 52, and 55-62, which
thus fall with claim 1.

Section 102 rejection of claims 3 and 54
Appellants contend that Zhao does not describe “the user defined data
model comprises a user defined web-based service model” as recited in
claim 3. According to Appellants, discovering internet domain names as
described in paragraphs 186-223 of Zhao is very different than creating a
user defined web-based service model. App. Br. 23. The Examiner finds
that the category view disclosed by Zhao is “a user defined web-based
service model” within the meaning of claim 3 since the category view is user
defined, and created from data collected during the monitoring of a client’s
interaction with a web-based service on a web server. Ans. 19.
Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive arguments to
rebut the Examiner’s finding. We sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 54
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Appeal 2010-000745
Application 10/302,178

8
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that Zhao anticipates claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Zhao anticipates claim 3.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 21-24, 41-43, 52, and 54-62 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Zhao is affirmed.
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. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tj