Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 23, 2012

10431917 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

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.
10/431,917 05/08/2003 Richard D. Dettinger ROC920030080US1 6902
46797 7590 01/23/2012
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
COLAN, GIOVANNA B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD D. DETTINGER, FREDERICK A. KULACK,
RICHARD J. STEVENS, and ERIC W. WILL
____________________

Appeal 2010-001535
Application 10/431,917
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and THU A.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001535
Application 10/431,917

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 6-16. Claims 1-5 and 17-32 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention generally relates to event management in data
processing systems and more particularly to managing events occurring in
data processing systems for providing an effective logging mechanism
(Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 6 is exemplary:
6. A method of generating log file entries for events
occurring during execution of a process in a data processing
system, the method comprising:

determining an importance level for an occurred event on
the basis of trend analysis indicating evolution of the process;

comparing the determined importance level with a
predetermined threshold value;

creating a log file entry for the occurred event only if the
determined importance level exceeds the predetermined
threshold value; and

refraining from creating the log file entry for the occurred
event if the determined importance level does not exceed the
predetermined threshold value.

Appeal 2010-001535
Application 10/431,917

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Schultz US 5,450,609 Sep. 12, 1995

Cassel, Microsoft® Windows® 2000 Professional Unleashed
(Sam’s Publishing 2000).

Claims 6-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schultz in view of Cassel.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
concluding that Schultz in view Cassel teaches or would have suggested
“determining an importance level for an occurred event on the basis of trend
analysis indicating evolution of the process” (claim 6). In particular, the
issue turns on whether keeping counts of parameters for monitoring
performance to identify performance degradation or to predict a catastrophic
hardware problem as disclosed by Schultz comprises “determining an
importance level … on the basis of trend analysis indicating evolution of a
process” as claimed.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appeal 2010-001535
Application 10/431,917

4
Schultz
1. Schultz discloses monitoring performance of an intelligent array
expansion system wherein counts are maintained for selected parameters
which are of interest to a system manager (Abstract).
2. Schultz identifies the need to record and provide information which
may be used to identify performance degradation or to predict a
catastrophic hardware problem (col. 1, ll. 55-59).
3. In Schultz, performance data is monitored periodically, wherein
counts and performance data are stored and an indication or warning is
given to the system manager when performance data or when a selected
parameter exceeds a preselected threshold (col. 2, ll. 4-13).
4. Statistical data which is counted is selected from the group consisting
of a number of sectors read, a number of hard read errors, a number of retry
read errors, a number of ECC read errors, a number of sectors written, a
number of hard write errors, a number of retry write errors, a number of
seeks, a number of seek errors, a number of spin cycles, a number of
reallocation sectors and a number of reallocated sectors (col. 5, ll. 57-66).
5. In an example, if one threshold has been exceeded that merely
represents a degraded drive, an indicator upon the drive array can be used to
indicate such degradation, wherein, if device-threatening thresholds are
exceeded, the firmware can drive the amber indicator steadily lit (col. 6, ll.
49-54).

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that “[m]aintaining a time count for a given
parameter of interest is, on its face, different from determining an
Appeal 2010-001535
Application 10/431,917

5
importance level for an event” as required by claim 10 (App. Br. 10). In
particular, though Appellants admit that Schultz discloses “‘counts’ [to]
keep record frequency of selected parameters,” Appellants assert that “[a]n
event occurring very frequently does not imply that the event has a high
importance level” (App. Br. 10). Furthermore, though Appellants admit that
“Schultz discusses statistical data,” Appellants contend that “Schultz fails to
disclose any trend analysis of the statistical data” (App. Br. 12).
However, the Examiner notes that “importance is define[d] to [be] the
state of being significant, or worthy of note or esteem” and finds that
“Schultz’ counts are maintained for parameters of ‘interest’ of a manager
and also a warning/alert/indication/flashing is sent if exceeding a threshold,
which clearly indicates that such counts are ‘worth of note or esteem’” (Ans.
11). Further, the Examiner finds that “Schultz’s counts are based on trend
analysis indicating evolution of a process” (Ans. 13).
In determining whether Schultz in view of Cassel would have
suggested “determining an importance level for an occurred event on the
basis of trend analysis indicating evolution of the process” (claim 6), we
give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the claims.
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 6 does not place any limitation on what the term “importance
level” means, includes, or represents other than the importance level for an
event is determined based on trend analysis indicating evolution of the
process. Thus, we give “importance level” its broadest but reasonable
interpretation as any determination for an event based on the trend analysis
Appeal 2010-001535
Application 10/431,917

6
of the process that is of importance, as defined by the claim and consistent
with the Specification.
Schultz discloses monitoring performance by maintaining counts for
selected parameters which are of interest to a system manager (FF 1),
wherein the counts are used to identify performance degradation or to
predict a catastrophic hardware problem (FF 2). In Schultz, an indication or
warning is given when the count exceeds a preselected threshold (FF 3),
wherein the count comprises various performance errors (FF 4) and the
threshold exceeded may represent a degraded drive or other device-
threatening events (FF 5). As Appellants admit, Schultz discloses “‘counts’
[to] keep record frequency of selected parameters” (App. Br. 10).
We find Schultz’s count of parameters for monitoring performance,
such as performance error counts, to comprise a determination for an event
that is of importance. In particular, we find events such as system
degradation or other device-threatening events are monitored in Schultz by
counting parameters such as performance errors related to the event, wherein
an indication or warning is given when the count exceeds a preselected
threshold. That is, as the count is increased, its importance to the related
event is increased since it is closer to the preselected threshold. In view of
our claim interpretation above, we find claim 1’s “importance level” to read
on Schultz’s performance error count.
Furthermore, as Appellants admit, “Schultz discusses statistical data”
(App. Br. 12). In particular, Schultz discloses counting parameters such as
performance errors to identify performance degradation or to predict a
catastrophic hardware problem (FF 1-5). We find no error in the Examiner’s
finding that “Schultz’s counts are based on trend analysis indicating
Appeal 2010-001535
Application 10/431,917

7
evolution of a process” (Ans. 13). That is, we find Schultz’s counting of
parameters for monitoring performance to comprise analyzing the trend to
indicate performance degradation or approach of a catastrophic hardware
problem.
In view of the above findings, we agree with the Examiner that
Schultz would have at least suggested “determining an importance level for
an occurred event on the basis of trend analysis indicating evolution of the
process” as required by claim 6. Accordingly, we find that Appellants have
not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 6 and
claims 7-16 depending therefrom and falling therewith over Schultz in view
of Cassel.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-16 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