Ex Parte Rossmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

11963785 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111963,785 12/21/2007
64280 7590 08/12/2016
Mintz Levin/SAP
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
Albert Rossmann
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.
34874-380/2007P00447US 1666
EXAMINER
ST LEGER, GEOFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2192
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroombos@mintz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBERT ROSSMANN and ROBERT HEIDASCH
Appeal2014-008933
Application 11/963,785
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP AG. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-008933
Application 11/963,785
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a system and method for tracing a
clustered application. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A system for tracing a clustered application, the system
compnsmg:
a server system that hosts the clustered application;
the server including at least one processor coupled to at
least one memory containing computer-readable instructions
configured to cause the at least one processor to execute
an instance tracer configured to manage a shared memory
segment for one or more nodes within an instance of each process
of the clustered application, the instance tracer being adapted to
serialize trace information for each of the one or more nodes and
write the trace information directly to the shared memory
segment according to a common time sequence, wherein the
instance tracer accepts or rejects storage of the trace information
into the shared memory segment based on component
information and severity information contained within the trace
information, the component information and severity
information associated with a trace of each node, the shared
memory segment is arranged as a rollbuffor, wherein a maximum
size of the rollbuffer is predetermined at a beginning of the
instance.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Huang et al. (US 2008/0162272 Al;
published July 3, 2008), Gopal et al. (US 7,185,061 Bl; issued Feb. 27,
2007), and Boost ("Templated Circular Buffer Container," available at
http://web.archive.org/web/20060813113603/http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gasp
ar/circular_buffer.html).
2
Appeal2014-008933
Application 11/963,785
Claims 4--7, 10-13, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Huang, Gopal, Boost, and
Davis (US 2005/0166098 Al; published July 28, 2005).
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting representative claim 1, the Examiner found that Huang
teaches all of the recited limitations except "wherein the instance tracer
accepts or rejects storage of the trace information into the shared memory
segment based on component information and severity information
contained within the trace information, the component information and
severity information associated with a trace of each node," for which the
Examiner relied on Gopal, and "wherein a maximum size of the rollbuffer is
predetermined at a beginning of the instance," for which the Examiner relied
on Boost. Final Act. 3---6.
Appellants first contend the cited portions of Huang do not disclose
that the "'instance tracer' writes 'the trace information directly to the shared
memory segment according to a common time sequence,"' as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 9. Appellants argue that Huang fails to use a "common
time sequence" to perform serialization and writing of the trace information.
Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue that, instead, Huang's short (Tj) and long (Tk)
time periods are determined based on recent and historical performance
3
Appeal2014-008933
Application 11/963,785
criteria values and threshold values specified by the user, and "would be
specific to each node in Huang as opposed to being common to all nodes."
Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 4--5.
In response, the Examiner explained that the time period T k is
configured by a user and applies to both node A 102 and node B 104 of
Figure 1, and their corresponding performance monitors 112 and 132. Ans.
16-17 (citing Huang i-fi-f 14, 18, 27; Figs 1, 2). The Examiner found that,
because time period T k is used by both nodes A and B, it is a "common time
sequence," as recited in claim 1. Id. at 17.
We agree with the Examiner that Huang teaches that a user can
specify the length of time period 206 of Figure 2 during a configuration
phase. Ans. 16-17; Huang i-f 18. We also agree that Huang teaches that,
when two or more nodes are communicatively coupled and configured to
execute related application processes, a node that detects a performance lag
in another node may broadcast a trace on/off message to all other network
nodes to cause all of the network nodes to collect trace data for the time
period 206 of FIG. 2 (Tk). Id.; Huang i127; Fig. 2. Thus, because more than
one node collects trace data for the time period T k, we agree with the
Examiner that Tk at least suggests a "common time sequence," as recited in
claim 1. See id. We observe that Appellants have not defined or explained
the phrase "common time sequence" in the Specification. Moreover,
Appellants' argument that the time period in Huang "is determined based on
a comparison of a difference value between recent and historical
performance criteria values and a threshold value specified by the user" is
not persuasive of error, as Claim 1 is silent with regard to how the recited
4
Appeal2014-008933
Application 11/963,785
"common time sequence" is determined. Reply Br. 3--4 (citing Huang iii! 20,
27, 34) (emphasis omitted).
Appellants next contend Gopal fails to teach or suggest that the
"instance tracer accepts or rejects storage of the trace information into the
shared memory segment based on the component information and
severity information contained within the trace information," as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 10. Appellants acknowledge that Gopal teaches
evaluating the importance level of trace messages, but argue that Gopal does
not use the importance level to determine whether to accept or reject a
particular trace message. Id. at 11.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. We agree with the
Examiner that Gopal teaches deciding whether the importance level is of a
selected importance level (step 400 in Figure 18), and, if so, the trace
message is recorded in the trace buffer of shared memory 51 (step 406). See
Ans. 19; Gopal Fig. 18, col. 6:10-13; col. 20:20-34. If not, Gopal may not
record the trace message in the trace buffer based upon an evaluation of a
topic included in the message (Fig. 18 steps 402-406). Id. With regard to
the argument that Gopal records a particular trace message regardless of its
importance level or topic, Appellants have not persuasively explained or
evinced why column 20, lines 20-34, of Gopal, cited by the Examiner, fails
to teach or suggest "storage of the trace information into the shared memory
segment," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6. Instead,
Appellants argue that, because "Gopal discards trace messages from
memory when the memory becomes full or when incoming trace messages
overwrite the existing messages," Gopal does not teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 11 (citing Gopal col. 2:60-64).
5
Appeal2014-008933
Application 11/963,785
Appellants, however, have not persuasively explained or evinced why the
cited portion of Gopal does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
Appellants next contend Boost fails to disclose that "a maximum size
of the rollbuffer is predetermined at a beginning of the instance," as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 12. Appellants argue that determining the general size
of a circular buffer for the purposes of storing incoming data, as Boost
teaches, is different from determining a maximum size of the buffer at the
beginning of an instance of each process of the clustered application, as
claim 1 requires. Id. at 13; Reply 7.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred.
Appellants attack Boost individually, even though the Examiner relied on
the combination of Boost and Huang as teaching or suggesting the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 3--4; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
("The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.").
Specifically, the Examiner relied on Boost as teaching that a circular buffer
of a maximum size would be created when the circular buff er constructor
explicit circular_buffer is first instantiated. Ans. 21-22 (citing Boost pgs.
7-8, box 8 "explicit circular_buffer ... "under "Constructors and
Destructor"). The Examiner further relied on Huang as teaching a circular
buffer for each instance of a process of a clustered application. Final Act. 4
(citing Huang Fig. 1, i-f 13); Ans. 22.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Huang, Gopal, and Boost teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 1.
6
Appeal2014-008933
Application 11/963,785
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 8 and 14, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similar reasons. App. Br. 13. We also sustain the Examiner's rejections of
dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20, for which Appellants make no
arguments other than those for the independent claims from which those
claims depend. Id.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7