Ex Parte Sidi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

13787124 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
13/787,124 03/06/2013 Colin Sidi 31083.47US2 6527
34018 7590 05/01/2017
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 WEST WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
j arosikg @ gtlaw .com
chiipmail @ gtlaw .com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte COLIN SIDI, STEPHEN S. HASKELL,
ABHIJIT NAIK, and DEEPAK RATHI
Appeal 2017-002785
Application 13/787,124!
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify W.W. Grainger, Inc. as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Brief 2.)
Appeal 2017-002785
Application 13/787,124
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1—9 and 11—19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm..3
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to systems and methods for providing
infrastructure metrics. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below with
argued limitations shown in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A non-transient, computer readable media having stored
thereon instructions for providing infrastructure metrics for
components of a monitored system the instructions performing
steps comprising:
obtaining, and storing in a data repository in a raw data
log, data indicative of application response times resulting from
user interactions with at least one of a plurality of applications
running on a network system)
obtaining, and storing in a data repository in an operating
system statistics log, data indicative of operating system usage
of system resources for at least one operating system running the
at least one of the plurality of applications running on a network
system;
bifurcating the raw data log into at least a transactional
data stream and a non-transactional data stream;
2 Claims 10 and 20 have been cancelled. (Final Act. 2.)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 6, 2013, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed March 31, 2016, the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”) filed September 7, 2016, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed October 21, 2016, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed December
6, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-002785
Application 13/787,124
correlating at least one of the transactional data stream and
the non-transactional data stream together with the data within
the operating system log onto a common time scale; and
using the common time scale to display the at least one of
the transactional data stream and the non-transactional data
stream that was correlated together with the data within the
operating system log on a display in a graphical format.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11—13, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Saghier (US 7,369,981 Bl, May 6, 2008) and Williams (US
2014/0019609 Al, January 16, 2014). (Final Act. 3-8.)
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Saghier,
Williams, and Breslin (US 7,827,448 Bl, November 2, 2010). (Final Act.
8-9.)
Claims 3—5, 8, 9, 14—16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Saghier, Williams, and Jones (US 2005/0091369 Al,
April 28, 2005). (Final Act. 9—14.)
ANAFYSIS
Claims 1 and 12
Appellants argue
while Williams may disclose, teach, or suggest modifying
Saghier such that port traffic data is inspected by protocol
parsers to determine if a received request and/or a response is
one of transactional data or non-transactional data, nothing
within Williams discloses, teaches, or suggests modifying
Saghier such that a raw data log in which is stored data
indicative of application response times resulting from user
interactions with at least one of a plurality of applications
running on a network system is bifurcated into at least a
3
Appeal 2017-002785
Application 13/787,124
transactional data stream and a non-transactional data stream as
claimed.
(App. Br. 5.)
Appellants’ argument fails to take into account all of the Examiner’s
relevant findings concerning Williams as set forth in the Final Office Action.
(Final Act. 2—3.) There, the Examiner explains that Williams discloses that
a collector application obtains and stores collected network traffic data in a
shared memory buffer (Fig. 11,1137); that part of the collected data
pertains to user interaction with an application (H 11—12); and that metrics
obtained from the collected data relate to application response times (1144).
In this regard, we note that the Williams’ mention of “total response time”
(| 11) or “latency of transactions” (1 144) in the context of user transactions
involving distributed applications (H 12, 144), are equivalent to the claimed
“application response times.”
In the Reply Brief, Appellants shift the focus of their argument to
assert that Saghier and Williams do not bifurcate a raw data log as claimed.
(Reply Br. 2—3.) According to Appellants, the Examiner admits that Saghier
does not disclose this limitation, and argue that Williams inspects incoming
port traffic to determine which requests and/or responses are transactional
and/or non-transactional. {Id. citing H 155—158, Final Act. 4.) Appellants’
argument fails to explain why Williams’ “shared memory buffer” (1 137)
storing time-stamped data (H 111—112) is not equivalent to the claimed
“raw data log,” or why Williams’ inspecting and filtering data in the shared
memory buffer to determine requests that are transactional and non­
transactional (11 147, 155) is not equivalent to the claimed “bifurcating the
raw data log.” Thus, we find this argument unpersuasive.
4
Appeal 2017-002785
Application 13/787,124
Also, in the Reply Brief, Appellants repeat the argument presented in
the Appeal Brief concerning the claimed “data indicative of application
response times.” For the reasons explained, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims, which fall with their independent claims for the reasons stated. 37
C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—9 and 11—19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
5