SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2022

2021001837 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2022)

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. 15/369,543 12/05/2016 Alan Southall 22135-1012001/161193US01 7468 32864 7590 03/31/2022 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER BOCCIO, VINCENT F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2022 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALAN SOUTHALL, ANUBHAY BHATIA, HERMANN LUECKHOFF, OLAF MEINCKE, REGHU RAM THANUMALAYAN, and THOMAS HETTEL Appeal 2021-001837 Application 15/369,543 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, 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 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP SE. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2021-001837 Application 15/369,543 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a data analytics system using insight providers. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for providing a data analytics system, the method being executed by one or more processors and comprising: providing, by the one or more processors, a plurality of insight providers within the data analytics system, an output of at least one insight provider being provided as input to one or more other insight providers, each insight provider being provided as a micro-service and comprising a logic component and a configuration component, each logic component comprising a domain-specific model, the domain-specific model of each insight provider being different than domain-specific models of other insight providers in the plurality of insight providers, the logic component further comprising logic that processes data based on input assets, and additional data to apply a data analysis using the domain-specific model to provide an analysis result that is unique to the particular insight provider, and each configuration component comprising one or more parameter values for processing data using the domain-specific model, the one or more parameter values defining one or more settings that control the logic and visualization of the particular insight provider; displaying an asset view of the data analytics system that provides graphical representations assets, the graphical representations being user-selectable; receiving, through the asset view, user input representing a selection of a first set of assets, the user input comprising data indicative of one or more assets, at least one asset in the first set of assets having a unique identifier assigned thereto; retrieving, by the one or more processors, asset data associated with the at least one asset of the first set of assets, the asset data comprising operational technology (OT) data and information technology (IT) data, the OT data being provided from one or more networked devices, the IT data being provided from one or more enterprise systems, at least a portion of the Appeal 2021-001837 Application 15/369,543 3 asset data being retrieved by the logic component of an insight provider querying a data source based on the unique identifier; processing, by the one or more processors, the OT data and the IT data using respective domain-specific models of the logic components of the insight providers to provide a first result set, the first result set comprising one or more of a second set of assets and enriched data; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, one or more graphical representations for display in a plurality of graphical user interface (GUIs) that are respectively specific to an insight provider of the plurality of insight providers, each the one or more graphical representations being at least partially based on one or more of the first result set and the second set of assets, and being provided from visualization components of the respective insight providers. Appeal Br. 20-21 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Maiocco US 7,752,301 B1 July 6, 2010 Mukkamala US 2017/0192414 A1 July 6, 2017 REJECTION Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Maiocco and Mukkamala. Final Act. 10-25. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 over Maiocco and Mukkamala The Examiner finds Maiocco and Mukkamala teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 11-21; see also Ans. 3-20. In particular, the Examiner finds Maiocco’s alert rules teach “providing, by the one or more processors, a plurality of insight providers Appeal 2021-001837 Application 15/369,543 4 within the data analytics system . . . each insight provider . . . comprising a logic component and a configuration component each logic component comprising a domain-specific model” (claim 1). Final Act. 11-12 (citing Maiocco col. 8, Figs. 12, 15). In particular, the Examiner finds Maiocco’s custom applications folder (Fig. 69) and certain other graphical user interfaces (dashboard, device configuration) and additional disclosures teach displaying an asset view of the data analytics system that provides graphical representations assets, the graphical representations being user-selectable; receiving, through the asset view, user input representing a selection of a first set of assets, the user input comprising data indicative of one or more assets, at least one asset in the first set of assets having a unique identifier assigned thereto; [and] . . . at least a portion of the asset data being retrieved by the logic component of an insight provider querying a data source based on the unique identifier. (claim 1). Final Act. 12-13 (citing Maiocco cols. 5-6, Figs. 11, 20, 57-58, 69); see also Final Act. 17-21. In particular, on page 20 of the Final Action, the Examiner refers to the Customer SNMP Poller (CSP) described at column 7, lines 34-57 (the Examiner refers to “Descriptive Paragraph - DETX (92)”), to describe (an insight provider) querying a data source based on the unique identifier. Final Act. 20. Appellant presents the following principal arguments: Maiocco does not teach “providing, by the one or more processors, a plurality of insight providers within the data analytics system . . . each insight provider . . . comprising a logic component and a configuration component each logic component comprising a domain-specific model” (claim 1). Appeal Br. 14. Appeal 2021-001837 Application 15/369,543 5 More particularly, Maiocco is absent any discussion of an insight provider as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15. For example, although the final Office action cites col. 8 of Maiocco for this claim feature, col. 8 is absent such disclosure. Instead, and in relevant part, Maiocco discusses that “[o]nce the Polling Proxy 110 receives the necessary data . . . it evaluates any alert rules which customers have established on the data, e.g., if CPU Utilization exceeds 50% then email customer@customer.com.” Maiocco, 8:25-30. There is no discussion either disclosing or rendering obvious “providing . . . a plurality of insight providers within the data analytics system, . . . each insight provider . . . comprising a logic component and a configuration component, each logic component comprising a domain-specific model,” as claimed. It is more accurate to note that Maiocco suggests the opposite of a plurality of insight providers as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15. For example, Maiocco discusses a Polling Proxy 110, in the singular, that “evaluates any alert rules.” This phrasing of Maiocco suggests that a single component, namely the [“]Polling Proxy,” and any logic of the Polling Proxy is absent specificity to a particular domain, and instead “evaluates any alert rules which customers have established” (emphasis added). This is the opposite of “a plurality of insight providers,” and “each logic component comprising a domain-specific model,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15. Appeal Br. 15. Maiocco does not teach displaying an asset view of the data analytics system that provides graphical representations assets, the graphical representations being user-selectable; receiving, through the asset view, user input representing a selection of a first set of assets, the user input comprising data indicative of one or more assets, at least one asset in the first set of assets having a unique identifier assigned thereto; [and] . . . at least a portion of the asset data being retrieved by the logic component of an insight provider querying a data source based on the unique identifier. (claim 1). Appeal Br. 15. Appeal 2021-001837 Application 15/369,543 6 [T]he cited querying of Maiocco is by the CSP [(Customer SNMP Poller)] “[u]pon being launched,” where the CSP “uses the C module built into the NET-SNMP package to make an SNMP query to each of the customer’s devices with the corresponding IP address and OIDs [(Object Identifications)].” This querying of Maiocco is generally absent a connection to the “customs application folder” of FIG. 69, and is specifically absent “the logic component of an insight provider querying a data source based on the unique identifier,” where the unique identifier is provided from “user input representing a selection of a first set of assets, . . . at least one asset in the first set of assets having a unique identifier assigned thereto.” Appeal Br. 16 (citing Maiocco col. 7, ll. 34-51); see also Reply Br. 1-2 (“That is, even if in arguendo Maiocco teaches ‘at least one asset in the first set of assets having a unique identifier assigned thereto,’ the Answer fails to address, and Maiocco anyway fails to teach ‘at least a portion of the asset data being retrieved by the logic component of an insight provider querying a data source based on the unique identifier.’”). We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appellant’s arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding Maiocco teaches displaying an asset view of the data analytics system that provides graphical representations assets, the graphical representations being user-selectable; receiving, through the asset view, user input representing a selection of a first set of assets, the user input comprising data indicative of one or more assets, at least one asset in the first set of assets having a unique identifier assigned thereto; [and] . . . at least a portion of the asset data being retrieved by the logic component of an insight provider querying a data source based on the unique identifier as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2021-001837 Application 15/369,543 7 In the Final Action on page 12, regarding the recited “receiving, through the asset view, user input representing a selection of a first set of assets, the user input comprising data indicative of one or more assets, at least one asset in the first set of assets having a unique identifier assigned thereto” (claim 1) (emphasis added), the Examiner cites to Maiocco’s Figure 69, which depicts a display of a custom applications folder on the Reports page. Final Act. 12 (citing Maiocco Fig. 69). Maiocco discloses: Referring to FIG. 69, in another embodiment of the invention, after the Single Applications template is selected in the Create Report UI, the user are presented with an option to Select Application. Under Select Application, three folders are available to the user: custom applications, standard applications, unidentified applications. A user may only select one/application for purpose of generating a report. Maiocco col. 53, ll. 44-50. In the Final Action on page 20, regarding the recited “at least a portion of the asset data being retrieved by the logic component of an insight provider querying a data source based on the unique identifier” (claim 1) (emphasis added), the Examiner cites to Maiocco’s Customer SNMP Poller (CSP) described at column 7, lines 34-57 (the Examiner refers to “Descriptive Paragraph - DETX (92)”). Final Act. 20. Maiocco discloses: The CSP, residing on the polling server, is a compiled C program script which is scheduled to run every five minutes, via a UNIX cron configuration. Upon being launched, the CSP makes a SQL query to a database that resides on the data warehouse server to determine the list of active customers. For each customer, the CSP uses a multithreaded process, meaning that each customer device is polled in parallel, not serially. Each thread queries the database again to determine that customer’s IP Appeal 2021-001837 Application 15/369,543 8 address and Object Identification (OID) information. OID is defined by the SNMP standards for a specific MIB. MIBs may be common standards across multiple devices (e.g. IF.MIB), or unique and/or proprietary to specific devices or applications (e.g. ORACLE.MIB). CSP then uses the C module built into the NET- SNMP package to make an SNMP query to each of the customer’s devices with the corresponding IP address and OIDs. All of the returned raw data is then written to the database in the event_log data table, along with a timestamp, which denotes the current time. If a customer device does not return any valid data, a value of NULL is written to the database with the same timestamp. In other embodiments, rather than sending out many individual SNMP get requests (one for each SNMP-suite metric), the system includes all OIDs pertaining to one device in each SNMP get request, i.e., SNMP get bulk requests. Maiocco col. 7, ll. 34-57. Appellant succinctly argued that “[t]his querying of Maiocco is generally absent a connection to the ‘customs application folder’ of FIG. 69.” Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 1-2. We agree. The custom applications folder allows a user to select an application for generating a report. Maiocco col. 53, ll. 44-50, Fig. 69. The Customer SNMP Poller makes periodic SNMP queries to each of the customer’s devices and all of the returned raw data is written to the database. Maiocco col. 7, ll. 34-57. We do not readily see a relationship between the SNMP queries and the custom applications folder. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner does not squarely address this argument. See Ans. 3-20. On pages 12-15 of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner explains why Maiocco teaches assets having unique identifiers. Ans. 12-15. However, the Examiner does not explain how this relates back to the custom applications folder of Figure 69 in Maiocco. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2021-001837 Application 15/369,543 9 We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 and 7, which depend from claim 1. Independent claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 1. For the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, we, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 8. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 9-12 and 14, which depend from claim 8. Independent claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1. For the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, we, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 15. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 16-19, which depend from claim 15. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 103 Maiocco, Mukkamala 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 REVERSED