Ex Parte Boydstun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2014

11673982 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014)

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.
11/673,982 02/12/2007 Louis L. Boydstun 2007P57002 US 3743
45113 7590 07/29/2014
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
WONG, HUEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LOUIS L. BOYDSTUN, RAO S. BANDARU,
TIM D. GOURLEY, JAYESH THAKKAR, and
RITESH A. DHOPE
____________________

Appeal 2012-001397
Application 11/673,982
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a system and method for log management.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for managing a plurality of software logs
across a multi-tiered network having multiple depositories,
comprising:

Appeal 2012-001397
Application 11/673,982
2
establishing a plurality of applications each executing on
a different one of a plurality of data processing systems,
wherein each of said applications has a logging engine with a
log writer;

producing a log file from each of said log writers;

associating a metadata file with each of said log files,
wherein each associated metadata file and log file are stored
together on the data processing system that produced the
respective log file; and

retrieving a plurality of log information from said
metadata files, using a data processing system, based on a
search criterion.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Justin US 2006/0117091 Al June 1, 2006
Dario J. Toncich, Fundamentals of Digital Circuits, Computer
Architecture and Interfacing to Mechatronic Systems 131–96 (1994)
(“Toncich”).

Serdar Yegulalp, Nested queries vs. temporary tables in SQL Server
(Mar. 2, 2005),
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/Nestedlqueries-vs-temporary-
tables-in-SQL-Server (last visited Apr. 08, 2010) (“Yegulalp”).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–15 stand rejected as anticipated under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) by Justin.
Appeal 2012-001397
Application 11/673,982
3
Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Justin in view of Yegulalp.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Justin.

ANALYSIS
Appellants present lengthy arguments to each of the independent
claims 1, 8, and 15 which each have slightly varied scopes. The Examiner
addresses the claim interpretation and varied scope in the Response to
Arguments section of the Answer, and we adopt these claim interpretations
as our own. (Ans. 18–82).
Appellants' first argument is that the Justin reference teaches use of a
centralized repository which "teaches away" from the present claims.
Appellants acknowledge that they are aware that a "teaching away" is not
specifically relevant to an anticipation rejection, but present it since
obviousness rejections are made to dependent claims. (App. Br. 17–19;
Reply Br. 12–18). We agree with Appellants that "teaches away" is not
relevant to an anticipation rejection, and we do not address this irrelevant
and unpersuasive argument (“‘[T]eaching away’ is irrelevant to
anticipation.” Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc., 537 F.3d 1349, 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted)).
Appellants argue the descriptions of Figures 5–8 and that in the final
and advisory action the Examiner "appear[s] to place much importance on
the data flow diagram of [Figure] 2, and accompanying description, that
describes alternative possibilities of storage of this data." (App. Br. 19). We
disagree with Appellants and find that the Examiner's identification of
Figure 2 and alternative storage locations support the Examiner's position
Appeal 2012-001397
Application 11/673,982
4
that centralized storage is not the only configuration. Throughout
Appellants' arguments, Appellants tend to stray from the express claim
language in the arguments regarding "specific" data processing system and
clients are not "searched" (e.g., see id. at 21). The Examiner has responded
to Appellants' arguments, and we adopt the Examiner's responses and claim
interpretations as our own. (Ans. 18–82).
Appellants reiterate the teaching away argument at page 12 of the
Reply Brief. (See Reply Br. 12). This argument is unpersuasive to the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15. Appellants present argument to
the claimed "retrieving a plurality of log information from said meta
datafiles," but do not address the alternative storage configuration identified
by the Examiner in Figures 2 and 3 along with the description that "log data
will be generated at both the client 300 and the servers 302, 304" (see para.
38; see also Ans. 26). (Reply Br. 13–18).
In essence, we find each of Appellants' arguments to go slightly
beyond the express limitations recited in independent claim 1 "[and] the
specific data processing system" (App. Br. 21); "retrieved from individual
systems based on a search criterion" (id. at 24) (emphasis added); "data is
still not taught to be located on the same data processing system that
produced the data" (id. at 25); "the distributed data and queries as in the
instant claims" (id.) (emphasis added). At best, the above identified
limitations may be implied, but are not expressly found in independent claim
1. The Examiner has set forth and addressed reasonable interpretations of
claim 1 and how Justin reads on this claim. Therefore, Appellants have not
shown error in the Examiner's reasoned finding of anticipation of
independent claim 1.
Appeal 2012-001397
Application 11/673,982
5
With respect to dependent claim 4, Appellants rely upon the
arguments advanced with respect to parent claim 1. Appellants further
contend that "[t]he specification also describes, e.g., in paragraph 0023, that
the GUI's query mechanism where it displays as though all log depositories
are one logical central log repository, when in fact it is distributed." (App.
Br. 27). We find Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with
the express language of dependent claim 4. Therefore, Appellants' argument
is not persuasive of error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation with
respect to claim 4.
With respect to claims 8–10, Appellants present similar arguments
advanced with respect to independent claim 1 which we have addressed
above and found unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's finding of
anticipation. (App. Br. 29–37). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 8 and claims 9 and 10 grouped therewith.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Appellants present similar
arguments advanced with respect to dependent claim 4 which we found
unpersuasive of error. (App. Br. 38–40). Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of dependent claim 11.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Appellants rely on the arguments
advanced with respect to the parent claims and maintains that the Justin
reference does not show Boolean operators or one of OR and XOR
operators. (App. Br. 40). The Examiner further identifies in the Response to
Arguments section of the Answer that the Toncich reference further
identifies the level of skill in the art regarding Boolean logic or
combinational logic, but the Examiner does not rely upon Toncich in the
statement of rejection. (Ans. 42). We agree with the Examiner. Appellants
Appeal 2012-001397
Application 11/673,982
6
present no responsive arguments in the Reply Brief to the Examiner's
showing. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14.
With respect to independent claim 15, Appellants rely upon the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1. (App. Br. 41–48).
We note that independent claim 15 does not recite "search criterion," but
only recites a "criterion." Appellants present argument regarding negative
limitations not being found in the claim limitations. (Reply Br. 21–22). We
interpret the Examiner's arguments (Ans. 70–80) to be an attempt to show
the broader breath of the claim limitations than presented in independent
claim 1, and that Appellants' arguments are not commensurate in scope with
the express language of claim 15. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 15 for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 12, Appellants rely upon the
arguments advanced with their respective parent claims, and that the
Yegulalp reference does not cure the deficiencies in the Justin reference.
(App. Br. 50–51). As discussed above, we find Appellants' argument to be
unpersuasive with respect to the parent claims. The Examiner further
maintains that the claim is broader than Appellants contend as discussed
above with respect to the parent claims. We agree with the Examiner's claim
interpretation and find no specific response to the Examiner's claim
interpretation in Appellants' Reply Brief. Therefore, Appellants' argument is
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants renew the "teaching away" argument at pages 23–25 of the
Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 23–25), but have not identified any express
teaching away. We note that “the prior art's mere disclosure of more than
one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these
alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
Appeal 2012-001397
Application 11/673,982
7
otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . . . ” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 7, Appellants present a
general argument for patentability and repeat the language of the claims.
(App. Br. 52). The Examiner has further addressed these claims in the
Response to Arguments section of the Answer with respect to the
anticipation rejection of claims 13 and 14. Appellants have not responded to
the Examiner's further clarifications and shown error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 7.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–4, 8–11, and 13–15 as
being anticipated. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5–7 and 12
based upon obviousness.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–15 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)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh