Ex Parte Schöning

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2016

12926223 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/926,223 11/03/2010
23117 7590 07/20/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harald Schoning
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.
JAR-5135-25 9124
EXAMINER
KRAFT, SHIH-WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARALD SCHONING1
Appeal2014-005768
Application 12/926,223
Technology Center 2100
Before LARRY J. HUME, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-26. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1Appellant identifies Software AG as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005768
Application 12/926,223
APPELLANT'S INVENTION
Appellant states the claimed invention relates to "timely processing of
events for streams of data by attaching boundary conditions to events and
then processing in one mode if the event can be processed within an attached
boundary and processing in another mode otherwise." App. Br. 5.
Claims 1, 14, 23, 24, 25, and 26 are independent claims. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for handling a stream of events, the method
compnsmg:
receiving the stream of events, at least one of said events
having boundary conditions attached thereto, the boundary
conditions being maximum reaction times and/or priorities;
executing, via at least one processor of a computer
system, predefined queries on the events;
for each said event having a maximum reaction time
and/or a priority attached thereto:
estimating whether the event can be processed
within the attached boundary condition,
processing the predefined queries according to a
first mode when the event can be processed within the attached
boundary condition, and
processing the predefined queries according to a
second mode when the event cannot be processed within the
attached boundary condition, wherein the second mode is
practiced by at least temporarily suspending queries that do not
consume events with attached boundary condition instead
processing other queries; and
ending the second mode returning to processing
according to the first mode when it is estimated that
unconsumed events having attached boundary conditions can be
processed within their attached boundary conditions.
2
Appeal2014-005768
Application 12/926,223
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTION2
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view ofKorupolu et al. (US 2008/0262890 Al; Oct. 23,
2008) and Beaulieu et al. (US 6,182,120 Bl; Jan. 30, 2001).
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Korupolu fails to teach or suggest "receiving the
stream of events, at least one of said events having boundary conditions
attached thereto and processing the predefined queries according to a second
mode when the event cannot be processed within the attached boundary
condition" as required by independent claim 1 and similarly required by
independent claims 14, 23, 24, 25, and 26. App. Br. 15. Paraphrasing the
disputed limitations, Appellant contends Korupolu does not teach altering
processing for a query when an event cannot be processed within the
boundary conditions, describing instead either proactive or reactive
triggering events used to schedule appropriate corrective actions based on
risk, utility, and other variables. App. Br. 15-18.
2 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for
patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 2014 Interim
Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16,
2014); "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court
Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,"
Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014; July 2015 Update on
Subject Matter Eligibility, 80 Fed. Reg. 45429 (July 30, 2015); see also, e.g.,
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), No. 2014-1506,
2015 WL 4068798, at *2-7 (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2015) (holding claims directed
to the abstract idea of budgeting not patent eligible).
3
Appeal2014-005768
Application 12/926,223
The Examiner cites Korupolu as a controller that evaluates "triggering
event details in light of[] business constraints to determine if corrective
action is warranted (e.g., based on actual or anticipated system utility loss as
a result of the current or anticipated workload SLO violations,
respectively)." Ans. 42--43 (quoting Korupolu i-f 8; additionally quoting
Korupolu i-fi-1 7, 40). Further, quoting numerous paragraphs of Korupolu
without explanation or analysis, the Examiner states "given the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that Korupolu discloses processing predefined
queries according to a second mode when the event cannot be processed
within the attached boundary condition." Ans. 46--4 7 (quoting Korupolu
i-fi-114, 40, 50, 62, 63, 131); accord Final Act. 11-12 (quoting Korupolu
i-f 131; citing Korupolu i-fi-114--15, 21-23, 38, 40, 49-51, 53-55, 61---65, 67,
70-71, 106-108, 110-113, 131-141, 149).
The cited portions of Korupolu describe a normal mode and an
unexpected-workload mode, explaining that a control-engine algorithm
"enters the unexpected workload mode when it finds that the observed
values for workload demands differ from the predicted values." Korupolu
i-f 131. Further, the Examiner cites Korupolu's description of the controller
that "can continuously compare the current system states (i.e., observed
values) against the check states (i.e., predicted values). If the difference is
large then it moves into the unexpected workload mode." Final Act. 53
(quoting Korupolu i-f 141 ).
We do not find in the cited portions of Korupolu, however, evidence
to teach that factors triggering the unexpected-workload mode are attached
to an event. More particularly, the Examiner's rejection does not adequately
4
Appeal2014-005768
Application 12/926,223
explain how Korupolu teaches processing predefined queries in a first or
second mode based on whether an event can be processed within a
maximum reaction time and/or priority (e.g., boundary condition) for each
event having such a boundary condition, as required by claim 1. See 37
C.F .R. § 1.104( c )(2). ("In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for
obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her
command. When a reference is complex ... , the particular part relied on
must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each
reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim
specified.").
It is unclear from the record how the teachings and disclosures of
Korupolu and Beaulieu are being applied by the Examiner to reject the
currently pending claims. Accordingly, having reviewed the Examiner's
rejections in light of Appellant's arguments and the evidence of record, we
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as the Examiner's
rejections of claims 2-26, each of which relies on the same portions of
Korupolu for its purported teachings of the limitations discussed above or
equivalent limitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-26.
REVERSED
5