Ex Parte Cutlip

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2013

11847298 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2013)

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.
11/847,298 08/29/2007 Robert R. Cutlip RSW920070075US1 (291) 1896
46320 7590 06/13/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
TRUONG, LECHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2013 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 ROBERT R. CUTLIP
_____________

Appeal 2010-007365
Application 11/847,298
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007365
Application 11/847,298

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12, and 13. Claims 2, 7, and 11 have been
cancelled.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to ontology-driven contextual mediation.
See Abstract. Claims 1, 6, and 10 are representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A method for ontologically driving context mediation in
a computing system, the method comprising:
collecting a plurality of events arising from a solution in
a computing environment;
loading operational meta-data for the solution;
contextually mediating the collected events with the
operational meta-data to produce context sensitive events; and,
correlating the context sensitive events with
corresponding symptoms in a display to an end user in the
computing environment, wherein
the events comprising both base events and also splunked
events.

6. An event correlation data processing system comprising:
an event collector collecting events from a solution in a
computing system;
a meta-data collector collecting meta-data for the
solution;
a context mediator coupled to both collectors, the context
mediator applying semantic context to event using the meta-
data to produce context sensitive events; and,
a correlation engine coupled to the context mediator, the
correlation engine associating context sensitive events produced
Appeal 2010-007365
Application 11/847,298

3

by the context mediator with pre-defined symptoms in a
catalog, wherein
the events comprise both base events and also splunked
events.

10. A computer program product comprising a computer
usable medium embodying computer usable program code for
ontologically driving context mediation in a computing system,
the computer program product comprising:
computer usable program code for collecting a plurality
of events arising from a solution in a computing environment;
computer usable program code for loading operational
meta-data for the solution;
computer usable program code for contextually
mediating the collected events with the operational meta-data to
produce context sensitive events; and,
computer usable program code for correlating the context
sensitive events with corresponding symptoms in a display to
an end user in the computing environment, wherein
the events comprising both base events and also splunked
events.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 8-10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 3-4.1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baudino (US 2008/0052407 A1, Feb.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed on December 10, 2009, Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
on April 27, 2009, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed on February 11,
2010.
Appeal 2010-007365
Application 11/847,298

4

28, 2008), Zaner-Godsey (US 2006/0174201 A1, Aug. 3, 2006), and
Chandrasekaran (US 2007/0271573 A1, Nov. 22, 2007). Ans. 4-9.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baudino, Zaner-Godsey, Chandrasekaran, and
Bhansali (Sumit Bhansali et al., Towards Ontological Context Mediation for
Semantic Web Database Integration: Translating COIN Ontologies Into
OWL, Proc. 3rd Int’l Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004)). Ans. 9-11.
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baudino, Farley (US 2006/0265746 A1, Nov. 23, 2006),
Myka (US 2005/0165795 A1, Jul. 28, 2005), and Chandrasekaran. Ans. 11-
16.
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baudino, Farley, Myka, Chandrasekaran, and Bhansali.
Ans. 16-17.
The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baudino, Farley, Myka, Chandrasekaran, Bhansali, and
Zaner-Godsey. Ans. 17-19.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claim 6
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s arguments. We
disagree with Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner erred in concluding
that independent claim 6 is not drawn to statutory subject matter. Appellant
reasons claim 6 recites “an event collector” and “a meta-data collector” that
Appeal 2010-007365
Application 11/847,298

5

“must necessary[il]y be hardware” in order to collect information as
software cannot perform these functions. Reply Br. 4-5. This argument has
not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding (Ans. 3) claim 6 is
directed to “software alone without claiming associated computer
hardware.” Appellant’s Specification identifies that in “a preferred
embodiment, the invention is implemented in software, which includes but is
not limited to firmware, resident software, microcode, and the like.”
Specification 0021. The Examiner finds that “there is no description in the
specification that the recited event collector, a meta-data collector, a context
mediator, or a correlation engine must be hardware.” Ans. 20. We agree
with the Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 8, and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 10
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 in light of
Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have
reviewed the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s arguments. We disagree
with Appellant’s conclusion that the claim recites statutory subject matter.
The Examiner finds that claim 10 is “non-statutory because [it is] not
tangibly embodied.” Ans. 4. The Examiner (Ans. 20) finds that the
application’s original disclosure supports that the claimed computer useable
medium may be a transitory, propagating signal (see e.g., Spec. ¶ [0022]
which discloses “[t]he medium can be . . . electromagnetic, infrared . . . or a
propagation medium”). We agree with the Examiner that the claimed
Appeal 2010-007365
Application 11/847,298

6

computer readable medium in claims 10, 12, and 13 is broad enough to
encompass a transitory signal and thus recites non-statutory subject matter.2
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner's § 101
rejection of claims 10, 12, and 13.

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1, 3, 10, and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Baudino, Zaner-Godsey, and Chandrasekaran
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Appellant contends that Chandrasekaran fails to teach “the claimed
base events are generated natively through the operation of logical
components, whereas the claimed splunked events are acquired through
crawling or indexing of logical components.” App. Br. 15-17; see also Reply
Br. 7-10.

2 The recitation in claim 10 of a computer useable medium is broad enough
to encompasses both non-transitory tangible media and transitory
propagating signals, i.e. the broadest reasonable interpretation includes
signals, which are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In re Nuijten,
500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and the Director’s Memo Subject
Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office
212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
Appeal 2010-007365
Application 11/847,298

7

The Examiner correctly finds that claim 1 does not recite that the base
events are “generated natively through the operation of logical
components,” or the splunked events “are acquired through crawling or
indexing of logical components.” Ans. 21 (emphasis added). Thus,
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
The Examiner finds (Ans. 21) that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of representative claim 1, in light of the Specification, the
claimed base events and splunked events encompass the “completion of a
particular activity or set of activities that are performed in one or more
computer systems.” See Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364.
The Examiner finds on page 22 of the Answer that Chandrasekaran
paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0040], and [0053] teach base events and
compound events, therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
representative claim 1 encompasses what is taught in Chandrasekaran.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the
Examiner has given the “same meaning to both of these terms [base events
and splunked events]” (Reply Br. 9), because Chandrasekaran explicitly
discloses that “users may define base and compound events.” Ans. 7, citing
Chandrasekaran, paragraph [0028], where base events have a different
Appeal 2010-007365
Application 11/847,298

8

meaning than a compound event. See also Chandrasekaran [0055] for the
meaning of “base events”, and Chandrasekaran [0060] for the meaning of
“compound” events.
Appellant also contends that the combination of Baudino, Zaner-
Godsey, and Chandrasekaran is improper. Reply Br. 6-7. In particular, the
Appellant contends that “[w]hether or not modifying the events of the
applied prior art (i.e., the combination of Baudino and Zaner-Godsey) to
include base events and compound events would result in the proposed
benefit has not been established by the Examiner.” App. Br. 18 (emphasis
omitted). We disagree with the Appellant. The Examiner found that a
person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
Baudino, Zaner-Godsey, and Chandrasekaran in order to efficiently process
sequence of events that may occur at different points in time. Ans. 8. As
such, we find that the Examiner has provided an articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of
exemplary claim 1.
Appellants have not separately argued claims 3, 10, and 12 and thus,
these claims fall with exemplary claim 1.

Claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant asserts their invention is not obvious over various
combinations of one or more of Baudino, Zaner-Godsey, and
Chandrasekaran with (a) Bhansali (claims 4, 5, and 13, App. Br. 19); (b)
Farley and Myka (claim 6, App. Br. 19-20); (c) Farley, Myka, and Bhansali
(claim 8, App. Br. 20); and (d) Farley, Myka, and Bhansali (claim 9, App.
Appeal 2010-007365
Application 11/847,298

9

Br. 20-21) because Farley/ Myka/ Bhansali do not cure the deficiencies of
Baudino, Zaner-Godsey, and Chandrasekaran. As set forth above, Appellant
has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Accordingly, the Examiner did not
err in finding the combination of Baudino, Zaner-Godsey, and
Chandrasekaran and Farley/ Myka/ Bhansali teaches or suggests the
invention as recited in claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 13.

CONCLUSIONS
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 8-10, 12, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12, and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12, and 13
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

msc