Ex Parte Cherkasova et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2014

12252053 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte LUDMILA CHERKASOVA, NINGFANG MI,
MEHMET KIVANC OZONAT, and JULIE A. SYMONS
_____________

Appeal 2012-006372
Application 12/252,053
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the rejection of
claims 1 through 20.
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to method for collecting performance data
for an application server that processes transactions from a client to a
database server. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
Appeal 2012-006372
Application 12/252,053

1. A method, comprising:
collecting performance data for an application in an
application server that issues requests received from a client
computer for composite transactions to a database server;
creating an application log from the performance data;
and
building, based on the application log including the
performance data, a model for capacity planning in a multi-
tiered architecture for the application, wherein the model
estimates processing costs to execute additional composite
transactions from client computers.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eager (US 5,960,200, Sept. 28, 1999)
and Yang (US 7,370,163 B2, May 6, 2008). Ans. 4–8.1
ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 6 through 8 of the Appeal Brief the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in
error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Eager
and Yang teach an application log including performance data as
recited in independent claim 1, 8, and 16?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Eager
and Yang teach a model for planning in a multi-tiered architecture

1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Appellants’ Brief (dated May 2
2011, hereinafter “App. Br.”), Reply Brief (dated March 2, 2012), and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed January 9, 2012, hereinafter “Ans.”).
Appeal 2012-006372
Application 12/252,053

for the application or estimates processor performance of the
application server as recited in independent claims 1 and 16?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’
conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 7 and
claims 16 through 20; however, we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion
with respect to claims 8 through 15.

First issue:
Each of the independent claims 1, 8, and 16 recites a creating an
application log from the performance data. The Examiner finds Eager
teaches this limitation. Ans. 5, 9 (citing Eager col. 4 and col. 21). We
concur with the Examiner. We note that Eager states, “Accounting libraries
165 are available to perform logging of application operations at all
applications tiers for performance monitoring, auditing, or error tracing and
recovery.” Col. 21, ll. 54–56. Appellants’ arguments directed to this
limitation only address the Eager’s teachings in column 4, and not the
teachings in column 21. Thus, Appellants’ arguments directed to the first
issue have not persuaded us of error. As this is the only issue directed to the
rejection of claims 8 through 15, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims.

Appeal 2012-006372
Application 12/252,053

Second issue:
Independent claim 1 recites building, based upon the application log, a
model for capacity planning. Independent claim 16 recites creating, based
upon the application log, a model that estimates processor performance. The
Examiner cites to Yang, col. 15, l. 55 to col. 16, l. 5, and Eager, col. 4,
ll. 23–64, to support the finding that the prior art teaches these limitations.
Ans. 5, 9. The Examiner has not provided a detailed rationale explaining
how these teachings meet the claimed creation of a model, nor is it readily
apparent how these teachings relate to building or creating a model. We
note that the reference does discuss models in other areas; however, the
Examiner has not relied upon those sections nor provided an explanation as
to how they would apply to the claims. As such, we do not find that the
Examiner has shown the prior art teaches the claimed model creation.
Accordingly, in the absence of a detailed explanation by the Examiner, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 7 and claims 16
through 20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 7 and claims
16 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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-IN-PART

msc