Ex Parte Greene et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 24, 2012

10113471 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM S. GREENE and MATTHEW C. PIERRET
____________

Appeal 2010-004383
Application 10/113,471
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004383
Application 10/113,471

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-21 (App. Br. 5). Claims 8 and 18 were cancelled
(id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A data processing system implemented method, comprising:

receiving a plurality of events from one or more clients;

accessing, by a processor of the data processing system, each of the
plurality of events to identify a plurality of types of events;

aggregating, by the processor, at least some of the plurality of events
into a plurality of items, wherein each of the at least some of the plurality of
events is aggregated by:

binding, by the processor, another event of the plurality of
events to an event identified as a particular type of event of the
plurality of types of events based on a correspondence between the
another event and the particular type of event; and

binding, by the processor, additional information to the event
identified as the particular type of event of the plurality of types of
events based on a relationship between the additional information and
the particular type of event;

rendezvousing, by the processor, one of the plurality of items with an
event of the plurality of events, where the rendezvousing reduces the total
amount of items in the plurality of items; and

Appeal 2010-004383
Application 10/113,471

3
storing, by the processor, information relating to the one of the
plurality of items and the event of the plurality of events in a memory of the
data processing system.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Novik (U.S. Patent No. 6,367,034 B1)
and Costa (U.S. Patent No. 6,138,121) (Ans. 3-13).

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Novik and
Costa teaches or suggests “rendezvousing, by the processor, one of the
plurality of items with an event of the plurality of events, where the
rendezvousing reduces the total amount of items in the plurality of items,” as
recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent
claims 11 and 21?

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion regarding the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims on appeal. 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 (Ans. 3-30) in response to arguments made in the Appellants’
Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We
highlight and address certain findings and arguments below.
Appeal 2010-004383
Application 10/113,471

4
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that
independent claim 1 is obvious because Novik and Costa “do not disclose or
suggest rendezvousing, by a processor, one of a plurality of items with an
event of a plurality of events, where the rendezvousing reduces the total
amount of items in the plurality of items” (App. Br. 14). In support of their
contention, Appellants repeatedly argue that the Examiner does not explain
how the teachings of event filters in Novik could reasonably be construed as
rendezvousing one item with an event (id. at 15-18).
Our reviewing Court, however, requires us to give a claim its broadest
reasonable meaning consistent with the Specification. In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). And Appellants’ Specification refers to
rendezvousing as associating; it discloses that a “work rendezvous 3516
associates later arriving processed events with events that initially generated
a work stream/task” (Spec. 148, ll. 14-16 (emphasis omitted)). Novik’s filter
also associates; it associates an event that satisfies the filter’s criteria with
other events that also satisfy the criteria (Novik, col. 13, l. 65 – col. 14, l.
43). Accordingly, under the proper claim construction, Novik’s teachings of
filtering events qualify as the claimed rendezvousing of an item and an
event. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 as well as independent claims 11 and 21 because
Appellants set forth the same arguments for those claims that they did for
claim 1. (App. Br. 26-31, 38-41).
Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3
as obvious because Novik and Costa do not teach “combining another event
of the plurality of events with the one of the plurality of items, wherein the
another event of the plurality of events was bound to another one of the
Appeal 2010-004383
Application 10/113,471

5
plurality of items; and removing the another event from the another one of
the plurality of items” (App. Br. 19). In support of their contention,
Appellants repeatedly argue that the Examiner does not explain how Novik’s
teaching of filtering events “can reasonably be construed as combining
another event to the plurality of events with the one of the plurality of items”
(id. at 19-23).
The Examiner finds, however, that Novik “discloses ‘classifying’
events which can be read on ‘aggregating . . . the plurality of events into a
plurality of items’ and ‘binding’ the events because classifying
groups/aggregates/binds the events into event types . . .” (Ans. 20). We
agree with the Examiner. Novik teaches that thresholds and filtering
conditions are established to “permit only the events of interest to particular
subscriber programs to be reported” (Novik, col. 2, ll. 62-64). Novik also
teaches that event classes are defined and “filtering is conducted by
comparing the event classes of the events and parameters of the events to
event-filtering definitions” (id. at col. 8, ll. 55-57). In other words, Novik
teaches that events meeting a filter’s criteria are combined into a group or
item (id. at col. 8, ll. 40-62 and col. 9, ll. 10-67). Accordingly, we find no
error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claim 3 as well as claim 13
because Appellants set forth the same arguments for claim 13 that they did
for claim 3 (App. Br. 31-34).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 as
obvious because Novik and Costa do not teach “combining an event, which
was bound to another item, with one of a plurality of items” (App. Br. 24).
Appellants also argue that Novik and Costa do not teach “combining
additional information with the one of the plurality of items” (id. at 25). As
Appeal 2010-004383
Application 10/113,471

6
explained supra, however, Novik teaches grouping events that meet filtering
criteria into an item. Moreover, the Examiner explains that Costa “is cited to
show that events can have ‘additional information bounded to them . . .”
(Ans. 20-21). In particular, Costa teaches storing “additional supporting
information about the event” (Costa, col. 6, ll. 36-37). Thus, the claim
limitations of combining events and additional information with items are a
combination of familiar elements from Novik and Costa that yields
predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claim 4 as well as claim 14 because Appellants set forth the same arguments
for claim 14 that they did for claim 4 (App. Br. 35-38).
We also find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of the
remaining claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20)
because Appellants did not set forth any separate or different patentability
arguments for those claims (See App. Br. 13-39).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-17, and
19-21.
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

llw