Ex Parte De Pauw et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201512724701 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121724,701 03/16/2010 877 7590 IBM CORPORATION IP Law Department 294 Route 100 P.O. BOX 100 Somers, NY 10589-0100 12/23/2015 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR WimDePauw 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. YOR920090292US 1 7805 EXAMINER HE,WEIMING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2015 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): iplawyor@us.ibm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WIM DEPAUW and PETER KENNETH MALKIN Appeal2013-010908 Application 12/724,701 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-25. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IBM Corporation. App. Br. 1. 2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed December 17, 2012 ("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed April 25, 2013 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed June 14, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Specification filed March 16, 2010 ("Spec."). Appeal2013-010908 Application 12/724,701 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-3 and 8-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. (US 2009/0228474 Al, published Sep. 10, 2009) ("Chiu"); Suzuki et al. (US 2008/0065928 Al, published Mar. 13, 2008) ("Suzuki"); and Chittu et al. (US 7 ,908,550 B 1, issued Mar. 15, 2011) ("Chittu"). Final Act. 4. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chiu, Suzuki, Chittu, and Gomez et al. (US 2002/0062208 Al, published May 23, 2002) ("Gomez"). Final Act. 15. Claims 5-7 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chiu, Suzuki, Chittu, and Ankerst (US 2005/0168467 Al, published Aug. 4, 2005) ("Ankerst"). Final Act. 16. THE CLAIMED INVENTION According to the Appellants, "[ t ]he present invention relates to a method, system and computer readable article of manufacture for displaying a visualization from an event log. More specifically, the present invention relates to displaying a visualization from an event log showing common sequences and instances of events and transitions between events." Spec. 1. Independent claims 1 and 25 are directed to methods, independent claim 10 is directed to a system, and independent claim 19 is directed to a computer program product. Br. 24, 26, 27-30. Claim 1 recites: A method of displaying a visualization from an event log, the method comprising the steps of: extracting a plurality of sequences of events from the event log, wherein the event log is a record of a plurality of 2 Appeal2013-010908 Application 12/724,701 events that occurred, and wherein a sequence of events comprises a plurality of events, wherein each event in the sequence, other than a last event in the sequence, is connected to a next event in the sequence by a relationship; generating a sequence graph from the sequences, wherein the sequence graph comprises nodes, each node representing a plurality of events of the event log, wherein each event represented by a node is from a different sequence, and herein the events of each node have a common property in addition to said relationship; and displaying a sequence graph visualization from the sequence graph, wherein the sequence graph visualization comprises (i) node icons representing the nodes of the sequence graph, (ii) node transition icons representing the relationship between events in the nodes, and (iii) for at least one of the nodes, an event icon, associated with that node, for each of the events that are represented by that node. Br. 24. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1-25 in light of Appellants' arguments presented in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings, reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the Final Action (Final Act. 2-20) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-7). We highlight the following for emphasis. Claim 1 Claim 1 is rejected as obvious based on a combination of the teachings of Chiu, Suzuki, and Chittu. Final Act. 4. This rejection is 3 Appeal2013-010908 Application 12/724,701 supported by detailed findings of fact based on citations to these references and articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 4--8. Appellants argue, "the Examiner's findings of fact regarding the scope and content of Chittu is [sic] based upon an improper claim construction." Br. 18 (emphasis added). This argument is not supported or explained. Appellants fail to provide any explanation as to how or why the Examiner has erred in construing claim 1, do not proffer or argue any claim construction, or explain how or why claim 1 is patentable over the cited combination of references when properly construed. We are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 by this argument. Appellants argue Chittu is non-analogous art. Br. 18. Specifically, Appellants argue that Chittu is directed to a different problem than the claimed invention. Br. 19. Appellants state, "Chittu is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and, in tum, is a non- analogous art reference to the present application." Id. But, as the Supreme Court said in KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007), "[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls." In response to this argument, the Examiner's Answer states: Each of Chiu, Suzuki and Chittu discloses the visual representation of the events with a tree structure. Suzuki is used to support the obvious disclosure of Chiu for event icon as node icon, while Chittu is used to further supplement the obvious disclosure of Suzuki on the multiple event icons within the associated node icon. These references are analogous art. Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner that the cited references are analogous art because the cited references are from the same field of endeavor as the 4 Appeal2013-010908 Application 12/724,701 claimed invention, i.e., the visual representation of events within a tree structure. We are not persuaded of error by this argument. Appellants argue, "the applied references do not disclose or suggest, 'displaying a sequence graph visualization from the sequence graph,' wherein the sequence graph visualization comprises 'for at least one of the nodes, an event icon, associated with that node, for each of the events that are represented by that node,' as recited in claim 1." Br. 20. In the Final Action, the Examiner makes findings of fact based upon Suzuki and Chiu relating to these limitations of claim 1. Ans. 3, 7-8. Appellants contend, with regard to Suzuki, that "the log display unit only displays a log of events in response to a failing unit" and "only shows certain nodes with certain log events." Br. 21. However, Appellants fail to explain why the Examiner erred or to distinguish what is claimed from the prior art. This argument is not persuasive of error. We are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments and sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Claims 2-24 Appellants do not present any separate argument for patentability of claims 2-24. Br. 12, 21. For the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1, we sustain the rejections of claims 2-24. Claim 25 Independent claim 25 is argued separately by Appellants. Br. 21-23. Claim 25 recites, "an event transition icon between a first and second event icon, wherein event transition icon represents an event relationship between 5 Appeal2013-010908 Application 12/724,701 a first event and a second event, and wherein a line format of the event transition icon represents a property of said event relationship." App. Br. 30. With regard to the "event transition icon" limitation, the Examiner relies on the combination Chiu and Ankerst and provides detailed findings of fact supported by cites to these references and a conclusion of obviousness supported by articulated reasoning with reasonable underpinning in accordance with KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Final Act. 19--20. Appellants argue "the Examiner's findings of fact regarding the scope and content of Ankerst is based upon an improper claim construction." Br. 23 (emphasis added). Here again, this argument is not supported or explained. Appellants fail to provide any explanation as to how or why the Examiner has erred in construing claim 25, do not proffer or argue any claim construction, or explain how or why claim 25 is patentable over the cited combination of references when properly construed. We are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 25 by this argument. DECISION The rejections of claims 1-25 are 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation