Ex Parte Cowham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2013

11820806 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ADRIAN W. COWHAM and DANIEL E. FORD
_____________

Appeal 2011-001148
Application 11/820,806
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHN A. EVANS, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001148
Application 11/820,806

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer readable storage
medium, and apparatus for logging and archiving messages. Spec. 1-2.
Claims 1 and 2 are representative of the invention and are reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
a) receiving a message to be logged;
b) writing the message to a stream corresponding to an active
archive in response to receiving the message, wherein the
active archive comprises compressed messages; and
c) writing the message to an active log without compression in
response to receiving the message.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein a) further comprises applying a
filter to the received message, wherein the filter determines
whether the message is to be logged.

REFERENCES
Autrey US 6,732,125 B1 May 4, 2004

Taylor US 7,512,862 B1 Mar. 31, 2009
(filed Apr. 13, 2005)

Appeal 2011-001148
Application 11/820,806

3
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-6, 10-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Applicant Admitted Prior Art
(AAPA) in view of Autrey.
1
Ans. 4-6.
Claims 7-9, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Autrey, and Taylor.
Ans. 6-8.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of AAPA and
Autrey teaches or suggests “writing the message to a stream corresponding
to an active archive, wherein the active archive comprises compressed
messages,” as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of AAPA and
Autrey teaches or suggests determining whether to log messages based on a
filter, as required by claims 2, 3, 11, and 12?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20
Appellants select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising
claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20, as Appellants do not separately address any of the
other claims with particularity. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s finding that Autrey teaches writing data blocks to a

1
The Examiner inadvertently left out claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 from the
heading of the rejection, but included them in the body of the rejection. See
Ans. 4-6. We find this to be harmless error and include the claims in the
heading here.
Appeal 2011-001148
Application 11/820,806

4
current segment after receiving the data blocks and then compressing and
archiving when the active segment becomes inactive. App. Br. 7; Reply Br.
2-3. Instead, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claim is not consistent with Appellants’ Specification. Reply Br. 2. We
disagree.
Claim 1 recites “writing the message to a stream corresponding to an
active archive in response to receiving the message, wherein the active
archive comprises compressed messages.” The Examiner finds that the term
“corresponding” does not equate the stream to the active archive, but rather
indicates that the two terms are separate elements. Ans. 9. While
Appellants point to particular portions of Appellants’ Specification (Reply
Br. 2), we find nothing in the claim or in the Specification that precludes the
stream and the active archive from being two separate elements.
Additionally, there is nothing in the Specification that specifically defines
the term “corresponding.” As such, we find the Examiner’s interpretation
(Ans. 9) to be reasonable and consistent with Appellants’ Specification.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20.
Claims 2, 3, 11, and 12
Claim 2 recites “applying a filter to the received message, wherein the
filter determines whether the message is to be logged.” Claim 11 recites a
similar limitation, and claims 3 and 12 are dependent upon claims 2 and 11,
respectively. The Examiner finds that Autrey teaches a segment manager
that handles whether log segments are archived. Ans. 10. However, we
agree with Appellants (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3), that Autrey logs and
archives every segment and uses the segment manager to determine which
type of media the segment is stored on based upon a particular policy. See
Appeal 2011-001148
Application 11/820,806

5
also Autrey, Col. 6, ll. 19-29. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, 11, and 12.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of AAPA
and Autrey teaches or suggests “writing the message to a stream
corresponding to an active archive, wherein the active archive comprises
compressed messages,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of AAPA and
Autrey teaches or suggests determining whether to log messages based on a
filter, as required by claims 2, 3, 11, and 12.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4-10, and 13-20 is
affirmed and claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ELD