Ex Parte Poghosyan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2017

13853321 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2017)

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.
13/853,321 03/29/2013 Arnak Poghosyan B140 3558
36378 7590
VMWARE, INC.
DARRYL SMITH
3401 Hillview Ave.
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
EXAMINER
MEHRMANESH, ELMIRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipteam @ vmware. com
ipadmin@vmware.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARNAK POGHOSYAN, ASHOT NSHAN HARUTYUNYAN,
NAIRA MOVSES GRIGORYAN, and MAZDA A. MARVASTI
Appeal 2016-008342
Application 13/853,321
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CARL SILVERMAN, and
ALEX YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 16, 19, 25, 26, 28, and 31. Claims 3, 5,
6, 8—12, 15, 17, 18, 20-24, 27, 29, 30, and 32—36 are objected to by the
Examiner as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but are indicated
as being allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-008342
Application 13/853,321
Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention on appeal is directed to
electronic data analyzing systems and, in particular, to computational
methods and systems for detection of anomalies in data produced by any
complex system. (Spec. 11).
Illustrative Claim1
1. A data-anomaly detection system comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more computer-readable media; and
a routine that executes on the one or more processors to
analyze digitally encoded data output from [LI] a system
monitoring tool and stored in the computer-readable media
by
[L2] identifying output data as qualified data or
corrupted data;
[L3] identifying and sorting the qualified data into
categorized data;
[L4] calculating normalcy bounds for the categorized
data; and
storing the categorized data and normalcy bounds in the
one or more computer-readable media.
1 Contested limitations LI, L2, L3, and L4 are emphasized in italics and
bracketed. Antecedent data elements and subsequent references are
emphasized in bold for contested limitations L2, L3, and L4.
2
Appeal 2016-008342
Application 13/853,321
Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 16, 19, 25, 26, 28, and 31 are rejected under
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marvasti et al. (US
2008/0270071 Al) (hereinafter “Marvasti”).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence
presented. We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive for the reasons
discussed infra. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis in our analysis below.
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 1 over Marvasti
Issues
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), did the Examiner err by finding
Marvasti expressly or inherently discloses contested limitations LI, L2, L3,
and L4, within the meaning of independent claim 1? 2
We have reviewed the Examiner’s mapping of each contested
limitation LI, L2, L3, and L4 to the corresponding features described or
depicted in Marvasti. (Final Act. 2-A). We have also reviewed the
Examiner’s supplemental mappings and explanations as presented in the
Answer (5—7) regarding the independent claims.
Although we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the contested LI
“system monitoring tool” (claim 1) is described by Marvasti’s “tool [that] is
provided for the detection of the [anomalous] events” in complex systems
2 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
3
Appeal 2016-008342
Application 13/853,321
(1 8), we nevertheless find a preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellants’ arguments regarding contested limitations L2, L3, and L4, as
articulated in the principal Brief (9):
The holding in Net Moneylin, requires that the Examiner to
demonstrate that the elements of the cited paragraphs of Marvasti
be arranged as described in the claims (See also holding under
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co. cited above). For example, the
Examiner links the elements of claim 1 to the paragraphs of
Marvasti as follows:
[L2] identifying output data as qualified data or corrupted
data —> [0030]
[L3] identifying and sorting the qualified data into
categorized data —> [0067]
[L4] calculating normalcy bounds for the categorized
data —> [0039] and [0041]
Each of these elements describes operations that are performed
on the results obtained in a previous element. For example,
output data is identified as qualitied data or corrupted data. The
qualified data is then sorted into categorized data. Finally,
normalcy bound are then calculated for the categorized data.
However, the descriptions in paragraphs [0030], [0067],
[0039], and [0041] do not follow the operations described by
these elements. For example, the description in paragraph
[0067] describes how the thresholds introduced in paragraph
[0030] are determined, but paragraph [0067] does not describe
a subsequent operation of sorting the data described in
paragraph [0030] into categories. Moreover, the description in
paragraphs [0039] and [0041] appear before the description in
paragraph [0067]. The descriptions in paragraph [0039] and
[0041] do not describes operations that are performed on the data
described in paragraph [0067]. For example, if it is assumed that
paragraph [0067] describes identifying and sorting data into data
categories, the paragraphs [0039] and [0041] should describe
4
Appeal 2016-008342
Application 13/853,321
calculating normalcy bounds for the categorized data in
paragraph [0067]. But, the descriptions in paragraphs [0039]
and [0041] do not follow from or describe operations that are
performed on the data described in paragraph [0067].
Therefore, the cited paragraphs [0030], [0067], [0039], and
[0041] are not arranged in the same manner as the elements of
claim are described as following from one another.
(App. Br. 9). (emphases added).
We note Appellants (App. Br. 8—9) cite to Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in support. Because
the Examiner cites to disparate paragraphs 3 in Marvasti in support of the
anticipation rejection of contested limitations L2, L3, and L4, we agree that
Net MoneyIN is on point and controlling regarding the issue presented here,
regarding the two functional limitations (L2 and L3) of “identifying” and the
third functional limitation (L4) of “calculating.” In particular, we find the
Examiner has not shown the antecedent basis relationships required for the
recited data elements (as emphasized in bold for limitations L2, L3, and
L4), as argued by Appellants, supra. (App. Br. 9).
Our reviewing court guides that in an anticipation rejection, “it is not
enough that the prior art reference . . . includes multiple, distinct teachings
that [an] artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.”
Net MoneyIN, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1371. Rather, the reference must “clearly
and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in
the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and
combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the
3 See Ans. 6—7: The Examiner maps contested limitation LI to 130 of
Marvasti; the Examiner maps contested limitation L2 to 173 of Marvasti,
and Fig. 8, element 222; the Examiner maps contested limitation L3 to 1141,
43 of Marvasti).
5
Appeal 2016-008342
Application 13/853,321
teachings of the cited reference.” Id. (quoting In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586,
587 (CCPA 1972)). Thus, while “[s]uch picking and choosing may be
entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection, ... it has no
place in the making of a 102, anticipation rejection.” Arkley, 455 F.2d at
587-88
This reasoning is applicable here. The Examiner has performed a
search of prior art and found a close reference (Marvasti). However, for at
least the aforementioned reasons argued by Appellants (App. Br. 9), we
agree that Marvasti is not an anticipatory reference.
Because the Examiner has not fully developed the record to establish
how the antecedent basis data relationships required by contested
limitations L2, L3, and L4 are disclosed by Marvasti, we find speculation
would be required to affirm the Examiner on this record. We decline to
engage in speculation.
We note that the remaining independent claims 13 and 25 each recites
the contested functional limitations L2, L3, and L4 of claim 1 using similar
or commensurate language. Therefore, we are constrained on this record to
reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1,13,
and 25 over Marvasti. Because we have reversed the anticipation rejection
6
Appeal 2016-008342
Application 13/853,321
of each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the anticipation
rejection of each associated respective dependent claim on appeal.4,5
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 14,
16, 19, 25,26,28, and 31 under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
REVERSED
4 Because a rejection under § 103 is not before us, we express no opinion
regarding the obviousness of the claims before us on appeal. However, our
reviewing court guides that under § 103: “Combining two embodiments
disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap
of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d
982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board
elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§1213.02. We leave any such further consideration of a rejection under
§103, over Marvasti considered alone, or in combination with additional
references, to the Examiner.
5 In the event of further prosecution, we direct the Examiner’s attention to a
precedential Board decision to ensure the “tangible computer-readable
medium” recited in independent claim 25 (and associated dependent claims)
is directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Ex parte
Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (holding recited
machine-readable storage medium ineligible under § 101 since it
encompasses transitory media); see also David J. Kappos, Subject Matter
Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212
(Feb. 23, 2010). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37
C.F.R. §41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to
do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §1213.02.
7