Ex Parte Cafeo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2012

10771172 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JOHN ANTHONY CAFEO, ALEXANDER P. MORGAN,
RONALD MICHAEL LESPERANCE, and ANDREA M. SIMON
____________________

Appeal 2010-003481
Application 10/771,172
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and THU A.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003481
Application 10/771,172

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates generally to building a case from log
entries and, in particular, to a method of linking log entries to build a new
case or to enhance an established case for inclusion in a case base (Spec. 1,
¶ [0001]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for building a new case or enhancing an
established case from log entries for a case base, the method
comprising:

identifying a current log entry, the current log entry
including a status of an on-going diagnostic process;

identifying a previous log entry, the previous log entry
including a status of either a current diagnostic process or a
previous diagnostic process;

determining if the previous log entry is related to the
current log entry;

if the previous log entry is related to the current log
entry, then transmitting an inquiry requesting confirmation that
a link should be created between the previous log entry and the
current log entry;

Appeal 2010-003481
Application 10/771,172

3
receiving a request to create the link in response to the
inquiry;

receiving an identifier of a type of link relationship
between the current log entry and the previous log entry; and

adding an entry in a link database that includes the
identifier of the type and an identifier of each of the previous
log entry and the current log entry to indicate the link between
the previous log entry and the current log entry in response to
receiving the request, thereby creating a new case or enhancing
an established case that when accessed includes the previous
log entry and the current log entry, wherein a reply link is
automatically created in response to the current log entry being
a reply to the previous log entry.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jeske US 5,974,443 Oct. 26, 1999
Douik US 6,012,152 Jan. 04, 2000
Starzl US 2002/0103809 Al Aug. 01, 2002
Thayer US 2003/0237022 Al Dec. 25, 2003
Silberstein US 7,383,320 Bl Jun. 03, 2008
(filed Sep. 18, 2000)

Claims 1, 17, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Douik and Silberstein.
Claims 2-15, 20, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Douik, Silberstein and Thayer.
Claims 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Douik, Silberstein, and Starzl.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Douik, Silberstein, and Jeske.
Appeal 2010-003481
Application 10/771,172

4

II. ISSUE
The main issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Douik and Silberstein teaches or would
have suggested “receiving an identifier of a type of link relationship between
the current log entry and the previous log entry” and “adding an entry in a
link database that includes the identifier of the type and an identifier of each
of the previous log entry and the current log entry to indicate the link
between the previous log entry and the current log entry in response to
receiving the request” (claim 1).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Douik
1. Douik discloses a trouble diagnostic process that assumes that
the trouble condition already exists in the network, wherein an indication of
the trouble condition is received, and based on the collected information on
the failure situation and the knowledge of the involved knowledge model,
the system performs filtering and correlation procedures (col. 36, ll. 27-39).
2. Whether or not the trouble report can be linked to another
report problem already in process is determined, and if so, the current
trouble report is linked to the existing trouble report and the trouble report is
closed and historical fault logs are updated (col. 36, ll. 42-49).
Appeal 2010-003481
Application 10/771,172

5
Silberstein
3. Silberstein discloses updating website content which includes
defining a high level relationship between projects by proto links to create
new slave objects and links automatically using newly created or existing
objects as corresponding masters (col. 12, ll. 25-28).
4. Information associated with proto links is stored in a protolinks
data base table 520 that includes a Master Project ID column 522A, a Slave
Project ID column 522B, and a Proto Link Type column 522D, wherein the
values of the ID columns 522A and 522B are management identifier values
corresponding to the linked projects and Proto Link Type column 522D
indicates that proto links can have a Proto Link Type value of either of
“copy” or “translate” (col. 12, ll. 43-61; Fig. 5C).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 17, 23, and 25
Appellants contend that “Silberstein does not disclose the link
relationship between the current log entry and the previous log entry,” and
thus “Silberstein does not disclose ‘a type of link relationship between the
current log entry and the previous log entry” (App. Br. 13). While
Appellants then admit that Douik “infers that a relationship [between a
current log entry and a previous log entry] exists,” Appellants contend that
“the relationship is never specifically determined or used” (App. Br. 14).
In response, the Examiner points out that Appellants “cannot show
nonobviousness by attaching references individually where the rejections are
based on combination of references” (Ans. 12, emphasis omitted). The
Examiner finds that Douik discloses “determining relationship between the
Appeal 2010-003481
Application 10/771,172

6
two entries” because Douik “performs filtering and correlation procedures,”
“determin[es] whether or not the trouble report can be linked to another
reported problem” and “links the current trouble report to the existing TR”
(id.). Thus, the Examiner finds that “the only disclosure that is lacking in
Douik is how the determined relationships can be stored, using ‘identifiers’”
(id.). The Examiner concludes that the “[a]pplication of Silberstein’s
method of storing relationships between objects using identifiers to Douik’s
method of building a case base would have been obvious … , in order to
enable automated updating of recorded content” (Ans. 14, emphasis
omitted).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants do not disagree with the Examiner’s
findings with respect to Silberstein and Douik but merely disagree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine the
references (Reply Br. 2-5). In particular, Appellants add that “Silberstein is
not in the same field of endeavor and is not reasonably pertinent to the
specific problem of the present application” (Reply Br. 4). Further,
according to Appellants, since “any motivation for using the teachings of
Silberstein would be for website content,” there is “no suggestion in Douik
or Silberstein for combining the references” (id.).
After reviewing the record, we find no error with the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.
Douik discloses a trouble diagnostic process that performs filtering
and correlation procedures (FF 1), wherein it is determined whether or not a
trouble report can be linked to another report problem already in process,
and if so, the current trouble report is linked to the existing trouble report
and the trouble report is closed and historical fault logs are updated (FF 2).
Appeal 2010-003481
Application 10/771,172

7
We find Douik discloses a link relationship between a current log
entry/trouble report and a previous log entry/trouble report, wherein an entry
is added in a database/historical fault logs to indicate the link between the
previous log entry and the current log entry. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that “the only disclosure that is lacking in Douik is how
the determined relationships can be stored, using ‘identifiers’” (Ans. 12).
However, Silberstein discloses updating content which includes
defining proto links/relationship between projects (FF 3), wherein
information associated with proto links is stored in a data base table that
includes ID columns and a proto link type column (FF 4). We find
Silberstein discloses using an identifier of a type of link and adding an entry
in a link database that includes the identifier of the type and identifiers for
log entries. We also find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the
“[a]pplication of Silberstein’s method of storing relationships between
objects using identifiers to Douik’s method of building a case base would
have been obvious” (Ans. 14).
Further, Appellants contend that “Silberstein is not in the same field
of endeavor and is not reasonably pertinent to the specific problem of the
present application” (Reply Br. 4). It has been held, however, that “[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.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Accordingly,
Appellants’ arguments that Silberstein discusses different problems in the art
are not persuasive.
Furthermore, though Appellants argues that there is no suggestion to
combine the references since “any motivation for using the teachings of
Appeal 2010-003481
Application 10/771,172

8
Silberstein would be for website content” (Reply Br. 4), Appellants appear
to have viewed the references from a different perspective than the
Examiner. The issue here is not whether the Silberstein’s website content
would have been combined with the teachings of Douik, but rather whether a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading Silberstein, would be discouraged
from storing relationships between objects using identifiers to Douik’s
method of building a case base.
We find that the skilled artisan would find it obvious to combine
Silberstein’s link database that includes the identifier of a type of link and
identifiers for log entries to Douik’s database/historical fault logs to indicate
the link between the previous log entry and the current log entry. In other
words, the artisan, upon reading Douik and Silberstein, would have found it
obvious to combine the teachings to receive “an identifier of a type of link
relationship between the current log entry and the previous log entry” and
thus add “an entry in a link database that includes the identifier of the type
and an identifier of each of the previous log entry and the current log entry
to indicate the link between the previous log entry and the current log entry”
as required by claim 1. That is, the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the
skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR,
550 U.S. at 420-21.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 over Douik and Silberstein.
As for claim 17 depending from claim 1 and independent claims 23 and 25,
Appellants merely repeat the claim language and assert that the claims are
distinguishable over the cited references “[f]or at least similar reasons as
Appeal 2010-003481
Application 10/771,172

9
discussed with regard to claim 1” (App. Br. 14-15). However, as discussed
above with respect to independent claim 1, we find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection over Douik and Silberstein. Further, Appellants’
statements which merely point out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Accordingly, Appellants also have not shown
Examiner error in rejecting claims 17, 23, and 25 over Douik and
Silberstein.
Claims 2-22 and 24
As to claims 2-15, 20, 21, and 24, Appellants merely contend that
Thayer “fail[s] to make up for the deficiencies of Douik and Silberstein” as
discussed with regard to claims 1 and 23 from which the claims respectively
depend (App. Br. 16). Similarly, as to claims 16-19 and 22, Appellants
merely contend that Starzl and Jeske respectively “fail to make up for the
deficiencies of Douik and Silberstein” as discussed with regard to claim 1
from which the claims depend (App. Br. 16-17).
However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and claim 23
falling therewith, we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection over Douik
in view of Silberstein. Accordingly, we also find no Examiner error in
rejecting claims 2-15, 20, 21, and 24 over Douik and Silberstein in further
view of Thayer; in rejecting claims 16-19 over Douik and Silberstein in
further view of Starzl; and in rejecting claim 22 over Douik and Silberstein
in further view of Jeske.

Appeal 2010-003481
Application 10/771,172

10
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb