Ex Parte Charania

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2018

14470404 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/470,404 08/27/2014
25537 7590 04/20/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Aamer Charania
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.
20141112 9432
EXAMINER
DUNCAN, TIMOTHY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2018 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AAMER CHARANIA
Appeal2017-011172
Application 14/4 70,404
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-21, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Claim 12 is canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2017-011172
Application 14/4 70,404
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to "a log parser implemented as part
of a big data system allow[ing] the user to specify parsing requirements in a
document" and "to avoid having to write, test, and debug code." Spec. i-f 14.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a map module, implemented in hardware, comprising:
a buffer to store first information that identifies
fields;
a first function to store the first information in the
buffer;
a second function to extract values of the fields,
identified by the first information stored in the buffer,
from a portion of a log;
a driver module, implemented in hardware, comprising a
third function to:
obtain configuration information from a
configuration file, wherein the configuration information
includes the first information;
store the configuration information at a first
memory location; and
perform a process to:
obtain the first information from the
configuration information;
store the obtained first information in the
buffer;
divide a log parsing job into two or more
tasks, wherein each of the tasks includes executing
the second function at a different slave device; and
cause the slave devices to execute the tasks,
2
Appeal 2017-011172
Application 14/4 70,404
wherein the configuration information
includes information that is different from the first
information.
REJECTIONS 1
Claims 1-8, 11, 13, and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Abadi et al. (US 2011/0302583 Al;
published Dec. 8, 2011) ("Abadi"). 2
Claims 9, 10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Abadi and Oozie ( Oozie Specification, a Hadoop
Worliflow System, (v3.l) (3 Dec. 2012),
http://oozie.apache.org/docs/3.3.0/WorkflowFunctionalSpec.html)
("Oozie").
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9-11, 13-18, and 20
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Abadi discloses "obtain[ing]
configuration information from a configuration file, wherein the
configuration information includes the first information; stor[ing] the
configuration information at a first memory location ... obtain[ing] the first
information from the configuration information; stor[ing] the obtained first
information in the buffer ... wherein the configuration information includes
1 In addition to the rejections identified above, the Examiner rejected claims
1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Final Act. 3--4. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Ans. 2.
2 The Examiner's statement of rejection lists claims 1-8, 11-13, and 16-21
as standing rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) by Abadi. Ans. 2.
However, claim 12 has been canceled by Appellant. See App. Br. 23. The
statement of rejection is corrected accordingly.
3
Appeal 2017-011172
Application 14/4 70,404
information that is different from the first information," as recited in
independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 13
and 20?
Appellant argues Abadi's meta-information does not disclose the
claimed configuration information. App. Br. 10. Appellant further argues
even if the meta-information could reasonably be construed as
corresponding to the configuration information, it "does not disclose that the
meta-information includes the datasets and schemas" being obtained and
stored in a buffer. App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant's arguments do not persuasively address the Examiner's
findings. Specifically, as the Examiner points out, the recited "configuration
information" includes (1) "first information that identifies fields" and (2)
"information that is different from first information." See Ans. 4. For the
reasons set forth by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner's findings
that Abadi' s XML plan/file teaches the claimed "configuration information,"
Abadi' s query plan of the XML plan/file teaches the claimed "first
information that identifies fields," and Abadi's meta-information teaches the
claimed "information that is different from the first information." See Ans.
4---6 (citing Abadi i-fi-f 17, 44, and 54--58); see also Final Act. 16-17. We
further agree with the Examiner that "datasets and schemas," as argued by
Appellant as missing from Abadi, are not claimed. See Ans. 6. Appellants
do not explicitly define "configuration information" in the Specification, nor
do Appellants direct our attention to any definition in the Briefs. Appellants
do not persuasively explain why Abadi's meta-information, such as
information about connection parameters (Abadi i-f 17), cannot be interpreted
4
Appeal 2017-011172
Application 14/4 70,404
as configuration information and specifically, "information that is different
from first information."
Appellant further contends Abadi does not teach the meta-information
is obtained from a configuration file and stored at a first memory location, as
claimed. App. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues Abadi's storage
component does not describe the claimed first memory location. App. Br.
11. Appellant further argues Abadi does not teach "meta-information is
contained within the XML plan/file" because Abadi does not teach an "XML
plan/file," and that Abadi does not teach a driver module comprising a third
function to obtain the XML file or the XML plan from a configuration file.
Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. As cited by the
Examiner (Ans. 5---6), Abadi describes that a "storage component can be
configured to store meta-information about each database system," and the
"meta-information can be an XML file." Abadi i-f 17 (emphasis added).
Abadi describes a catalog that "can be further configured to store meta-
information about the databases," and this "information includes, but is not
limited to, the following information: (i) connection parameters such as
database location, driver class and credentials, (ii) metadata such as data sets
contained in the cluster, replica locations, and data partitioning properties,"
and that the catalog can "store such meta-information in various formats,
such as an XML file," which "can be accessed by job tracker 142 and task
trackers 122 to retrieve information necessary to schedule tasks and process
data needed by a query." Abadi i-f 44 (emphasis added). Abadi describes
creating an executable MR job and processing a query including
''populat[ing] different data structures with meta-information such as the
5
Appeal 2017-011172
Application 14/4 70,404
Deserializer and InputFonnat classes required to scan the table and extract
the necessary fields," and then "generat[ing] creates a DAG of relational
operators, which form the query plan." Abadi i-fi-154--55 (emphasis added).
In other words, Abadi describes meta-information in an XML file that is
stored in a storage component, and that includes connection parameters used
to extract fields to form a query plan, as well as metadata. Appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner's findings.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 13, and 20, as well as dependent claims 4--6, 8, 9--11,
and 14--18, not separately argued.
Claims 2, 3, and 21
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Abadi discloses "the first
information includes, for each of the identified fields: a field name; and a
pattern," as recited in dependent claim 2, and commensurately recited in
dependent claim 21?
The Examiner finds Abadi's SQL query describes identifying a field
name and a pattern. Final Act. 7 (citing i1 90). Specifically, the Examiner
finds Abadi's SQL statements identify field names and generic patterns.
Ans. 6.
Appellant argues Abadi teaches a SQL query, but does not teach that
each identified field includes a field name and a pattern. App. Br. 13-14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. As cited by the
Examiner (Final Act. 7), Abadi describes an example SQL query
"SELECT*FROM Data WHERE field LIKE '% XYZ %. "' Abadi i-f 90.
Abadi describes "XYZ" in the example SQL query as "pattern 'XYZ. "'
6
Appeal 2017-011172
Application 14/4 70,404
Abadi i-f 88. In other words, Abadi describes queries including field "LIKE"
and pattern "XYZ," thereby identifying field names and patterns.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument that
Abadi's SQL query including a field name (LIKE) and pattern (XYZ) does
not describe "the first information includes, for each of the identified fields:
a field name; and a pattern," as claimed.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claims 2 and 21, as well as dependent claim 3, not separately
argued.
Claims 7 and 19
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding Abadi discloses "the third
function is further to: create a job object; and store, in the job object, an
address of a memory location at which the map module is stored," as recited
in claim 7, and commensurately recited in claim 19?
Appellant argues Abadi does not describe the claimed 'job object" or
the claimed "storing, in the job object, an address of a memory location at
which the map module is stored." App. Br. 15.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner finds
Abadi's "XML plan is the DAG, which is the job object," and Abadi's
"query/XML plan inherently must contain the address of the mapper in order
to execute the mapping phase." Ans. 7. However, while Abadi's XML plan
may describe the claimed job object, Abadi does not describe the claimed
storing, in the job object or XML plan, "an address of a memory location at
which the map module is stored." Abadi makes no reference to a memory
location for a map module or mapper. We agree with Appellant that the
7
Appeal 2017-011172
Application 14/4 70,404
Examiner has not sufficiently shown Abadi describes "store, in the job
object, an address of a memory location at which the map module is stored,"
as claimed.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 7 and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-11, 13-18, 20, and 21 are
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 19 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
8