Ex Parte RODGERS et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 26, 2019

14247810 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/247,810 04/08/2014
55498 7590 04/30/2019
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle)
2160 Lundy Avenue
Suite 230
San Jose, CA 95131
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Patrick RODGERS
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ORA130849-US-NP 4799
EXAMINER
BAYOU, YONAS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2019 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):
docketing@viplawgroup.com
ev@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL PA TRICK RODGERS and
CHRISTOPHER LEE WALSH
Appeal2018-007590
Application 14/247,810
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Oracle International
Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-007590
Application 14/247,810
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention "data monitoring, and in
particular to a mechanism for monitoring data using watchlist items." Spec.
,i 3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for monitoring one or more data items in
a database, comprising:
using at least one processor that is programmed or
configured for performing a process, the process comprising:
determining a set of parameters for identifying at least one
data item amongst the one or more data items in the database;
determining criteria for recommending or requiring user
action for the at least one data item to be identified;
creating a watchlist item definition for evaluating the one
or more data items in the database, wherein the watchlist item
definition defines at least the determined set of parameters for
identifying the at least one data item amongst the one or more
data items in the database and the determined criteria for
recommending or requiring user action for the at least one data
item to be identified, wherein at least one parameter of the
determined set of parameters defines an interval at which the data
items in the database is to be evaluated;
evaluating the watchlist item definition at the defined
interval to identify the at least one data item, wherein the
evaluation comprises comparing the one or more data items in
the database against the defined set of parameters in the watchlist
item definition;
presenting an indication of the identified at least one data
item; and
providing an alert recommending or requiring user action
when the identified at least one data item meets the criteria for
recommending or requiring user action defined in the watchlist
item definition.
2
Appeal2018-007590
Application 14/247,810
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Coming (US 2008/0140587 Al; published June 12, 2008)
and Sartin (US 2013/0160129 Al; published June 20, 2013). Final Act. 4-
12.
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-33 as unpatentable over Coming and Sartin.
Appellants contend that the combination of Coming and Sartin fails to
teach or suggest a defined interval for evaluating an item, as required by
claims 1, 12, and 23. App. Br. 15-19. Specifically, Appellants assert that
Sartin "discloses a tracking period field that identifies when a particular
activity had occurred - which is not a defined interval to evaluate and re-
evaluate an item as required by the claimed limitations." App. Br. 16.
According to Appellants, "a defined interval indicates how often a watchlist
item definition is re-evaluated (e.g., every second, every 5 minutes, etc.), as
opposed to a field that merely indicates a period of time when a particular
activity had taken place." App. Br. 17; see also App. Br. 16-17 (citing
paragraphs 25, 35, and 70 of the Specification as support).
We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. The claims broadly
recite defining "an interval at which the data items in the database is to be
evaluated." As the Examiner explains, Sartin discloses a tracking period that
identifies a period of time that activity has been monitored. Ans. 11-12. As
such, a skilled artisan would understand Sartin to be teaching constant
monitoring over a period of time. This teaching is consistent with the
3
Appeal2018-007590
Application 14/247,810
Specification's disclosure that the claimed invention may define a time for
re-evaluation including, for example, every second. Spec. ,i 70. Moreover,
although the Specification describes, in an exemplary embodiment, that
there is evaluation and re-evaluation at set intervals or at refresh intervals
(Spec. ,i,i 25, 35, and 70), these limitations are notably absent from the
claims. As such, we are not persuaded that Sartin and Coming fail to teach
or suggest the recited interval.
Appellants contend that Coming fails to teach or suggest a set of
parameters for identifying a one data item and evaluating the watchlist item
definition at the defined interval to identify the data item by comparing the
data items against the defined set of parameters in the watchlist item
definition. App. Br. 19-22. In particular, Appellants argue that "the claims
recite a set of parameters for identifying at least one data item amongst the
one or more data items in the database in an automated fashion" whereas
Coming discloses users manually assigning items to the watchlists. App. Br.
20. According to Appellants,
Coming is not concerned with an automated way of evaluating
one or more data items in a database using a set of parameters for
identifying the at least one data item in a defined interval. In fact,
Coming does not disclose a set of parameters for automatically
identifying at least one data item amongst the one or more data
items in the database because Coming does not have a need for
a set of parameters to help automate the evaluation step.
App. Br. 21-22.
Appellants, however, fail to consider the combination of Coming with
Sartin. While the Examiner relies on Coming as teaching the determining
the set of parameters step, the rejection then turns to Sartin for the evaluating
the watchlist item definition at the defined interval step. See Final Act. 5-6.
4
Appeal2018-007590
Application 14/247,810
The Examiner, thus, relies on the combined teachings of Coming and Sartin
to satisfy the disputed limitations. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As
such, based on the record before us, we find Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive.
With respect to claim 6, Appellants argue that Sartin fails to teach or
suggest "the alert is a critical alert when the identified at least one data item
meets the warning threshold and a critical threshold." App. Br. 22.
Appellants point out that the claim expressly recites two alert thresholds and
the combination of references fails to teach these two alert thresholds. App.
Br. 22-23. We agree. Sartin discloses that "activity investigation module
420 may enable activity investigation system 130 to create a system security
report representing the level of security corresponding to target system 110."
Sartin ,-J 43. In other words, the security report may identify a security level
of a system. This disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed alert
when an item meets both the warning threshold and critical threshold. As
such, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 as
unpatentable over Coming and Sartin, as well as claims 17 and 28 that recite
commensurate limitations.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5,
7-16, 18-27, and 29-33 as unpatentable over the cited combination of
Coming and Sartin, but reverse the rejection with respect to dependent
claims 6, 17, and 28.
5
Appeal2018-007590
Application 14/247,810
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7-16, 18-27, and
29-33 as unpatentable over Coming and Sartin, and reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 6, 17, and 28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6