Ex Parte Singla

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2019

14125785 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/125,785 12/12/2013
146568 7590
ENTIT SOFTWARE LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
03/18/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anurag Singla
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.
83696820 1553
EXAMINER
DA YE, CHELCIE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2019 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):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANURAG SINGLA
Appeal2018-007195
Application 14/125,785
Technology Center 2100
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the original
specification, filed Dec. 12, 2013, as the national stage entry of a PCT
application filed June 30, 2011; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action,
mailed July 27, 2017; "App. Br." for Appellant's Appeal Brief, filed
Dec. 21, 2017; "Claims App 'x" for the Appellant's corrected Claims
Appendix, filed Feb. 21, 2018; "Ans." for Examiner's Answer, mailed
May 17, 2018; and "Reply Br." for Appellant's Reply Brief, filed
July 9, 2018.
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is EntIT Software LLC, a
wholly-owned affiliate of Micro Focus International Plc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-007195
Application 14/125,785
BACKGROUND
Appellant's disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
merging partially aggregated query results. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
determining a partially aggregated query result produced in
response to a received query, wherein each query of a plurality
of queries is executed on a plurality of events at a defined
schedule and a time duration;
identifying a key and values of the key in records of the
partially aggregated query result, the key identified from a
grouping clause in the received query, the grouping clause to
organize records of the partially aggregated query result into
groups;
determining whether a function for the partially aggregated
query result is identified;
in response to determining that the function is identified:
determining a related partially aggregated query result,
received from an agent on a network security device that
collects events different from the plurality of events, of a
plurality of partially aggregated query results by querying
a data store containing the plurality of partially
aggregated query results using the key; and
merging, at a local memory of a computing device
separate from the network security device, the partially
aggregated query result and the related partially
aggregated query result by applying the function to the
values of the key in the records of the partially
aggregated query result and values of the key in the
related partially aggregated query result; and
in response to determining that the function is not identified,
skipping the determining and the merging.
Claims App 'x 1.
2
Appeal2018-007195
Application 14/125,785
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Krishnamurthy (US 2011/0302164 Al, filed
May 5, 2011, published Dec. 8, 2011 ), Tyson Condie et al., Map Reduce
Online, NSDI'10 Proceedings of the 7th Usenix Conference on Networked
Systems Design and Implementation (Apr. 28, 2010) (hereinafter
"MapReduce"), MacNicol (US 2002/0198872 Al, published Dec. 26, 2002),
and Huang (US 2008/0162592 Al, published July 3, 2008). Final Act. 3-8.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Claims 1-6, 7-11, 16, 17, 18, and 19
Appellant argues claims 1---6, 7-11, 16, 17, 18, and 19 together as a
group. See App. Br. 6-12. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we limit our discussion to independent claim 1. 3
Claims 2---6, 7-11, 16, 17, 18, and 19 stand or fall with claim 1.
3 Appellant submits "[t]he claims do not stand or fall together," but only
presents arguments for independent claim 1. App. Br. 6-14. Appellant's
3
Appeal2018-007195
Application 14/125,785
querying limitation
Claim 1 recites: "determining a related partially aggregated query
result ... of a plurality of partially aggregated query results by querying a
data store containing the plurality of partially aggregated query results using
the key." Claims App'x 1 (emphasis added) (referred to in this Decision as
the "querying limitation"). The claim also states "the key [is] identified
from a grouping clause in the received query." Id. For these limitations, the
Examiner relied on a combination of Krishnamurthy, MapReduce and
MacNicol. Final Act. 3--4. Appellant argues the proposed combination fails
to teach or suggest querying a data store using a key that is identified from a
grouping clause in a received query. App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-6.
The Examiner found Krishnamurthy determines the related partially
aggregated query result by querying the data store, as required by the claim,
but decided the reference "is not as detailed as the examiner would like with
respect to" the claimed key. Final Act. 3--4, 8-9 ( citing Krishnamurthy
,r,r 39, 88, 114--15). The Examiner found MapReduce identifies a key in
records of partially aggregated query results, and MacNicol teaches a key
identified from a grouping clause in a received query. Id. at 4, 9 (citing
MapReduce § 2.1; MacNicol i-fi-f 76-77).
For each of the references cited by the Examiner, Appellant
summarizes the cited portion of the reference and summarily concludes the
description does not teach or suggest "querying a data store containing the
plurality of partially aggregated query results using the key identified from a
failure "to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(l)(iv ).
4
Appeal2018-007195
Application 14/125,785
grouping clause of the received query." App. Br. 8 (addressing
Krishnamurthy) (emphasis removed), 9 (addressing MapReduce), 10
(addressing MacNicol); see Reply Br. 2---6 (repeating this argument).
We are not persuaded of error. Nonobviousness cannot be established
by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on the
teachings of a combination of prior art references. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). By arguing that Krishnamurthy,
MapReduce, and MacNicol each individually fail to teach all aspects of the
limitation at issue, Appellant does not address the rejection as articulated, in
which the Examiner relies on certain combined teachings of the prior art.
See Final Act. 3--4, 8-9; see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981) ("[T]he test [ for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). In
addition, although Appellant contends no reference discloses all aspects of
the disputed limitations, Appellant does not identify any alleged error in the
Examiner's individual factual findings regarding each reference. 4 App. Br.
7-10. Further, Appellant does not explain why the references do not satisfy
the limitation at issue, and Appellant's summary conclusions do not show
error. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall explain why
the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.").
We determine the statements relied on by the Examiner to reject
claim 1 provide a "rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with
4 Appellant faults the Final Action for omitting the phrase "using a key"
when reciting the querying limitation. App. Br. 7. Because the Examiner
substantively addressed this claim limitation and made relevant factual
findings (see Final Act. 3--4, 8-9), we are not persuaded of error.
5
Appeal2018-007195
Application 14/125,785
approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). The
Examiner finds Krishnamurthy discloses most of the claim limitations, but
does not specify that the query uses a key obtained "from a grouping clause
in the received query." Final Act. 3--4, 8-9. The Examiner finds
MapReduce and MacNicol teach this claimed key-MapReduce uses a key
to access and aggregate associated values, and MacNicol's query includes a
grouping clause used to create partially aggregated results. Id. at 4, 9;
Map Reduce § 2 .1; MacNicol ,r,r 7 6-77. The Examiner reasoned it would
have been obvious to perform Krishnamurthy's query with a key obtained
from a grouping clause in the received query, as taught by MacNicol and
MapReduce, because this combination would "reduce completion times,"
"improve system utilization," and "enhance the execution of the submitted
query." Final Act. 4. Appellant does not allege error in the Examiner's
combination of these references or in the Examiner's obviousness rationale.
By not addressing the reasoning provided, Appellant has not shown error in
the relevant findings or the conclusion as to obviousness, which we
determine to be supported by rational underpinnings. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (If an examiner presents a prima facie
case, "the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the
applicant.").
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the querying limitation required by claim 1.
6
Appeal2018-007195
Application 14/125,785
responding to the determination limitation
Claim 1 recites: "determining whether a function for the partially
aggregated query result is identified." Claims App 'x 1. The claim further
recites: "in response to determining that the function is identified:
determining ... and merging ... " and "in response to determining that the
function is not identified, skipping the determining and the merging." Id.
( collectively referred to in this Decision as the "responding to the
determination limitation").
The Examiner found Krishnamurthy teaches the responding to the
determination limitation. Final Act. 3--4, 9 (citing Krishnamurthy ,r,r 72, 74).
Specifically, the Examiner explained Krishnamurthy decides whether a
"query can operate in terms of partial aggregates"-if the function is on a
white list (i.e., allowed), the partial aggregates are determined and merged,
but if the function is on a black list (i.e., excluded), these steps are not
performed. Id.
Appellant argues Krishnamurthy fails to teach or suggest the claim
limitation. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 6-8. Specifically, Appellant states:
The foregoing assertion in the Office Action states that
"determining and merging" is skipped "if the query contains a
function." In other words, the Examiner appears to state that in
Krishnamurthy, the skipping is performed if the function
contained in the query is identified. However, that is not what
claim 1 recites----claim 1 recites skipping the determining and
the merging in response to determining that the function is not
identified.
App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis in original). 5
5 For claim 1, the Examiner's finding on either limitation is sufficient to
show Krishnamurthy teaches the responding to the determination limitation.
Claim 1 is a method claim that arguably recites two mutually exclusive
7
Appeal2018-007195
Application 14/125,785
We are not persuaded of error. For "determining whether a function
... is identified," the Examiner pointed to checking Krishnamurthy's white
list. Final Act. 3, 9. If a function is on the white list, Krishnamurthy
operates in terms of partial aggregates; if not, Krishnamurthy does not
perform those steps. Krishnamurthy ,r 72; Final Act. 3--4, 9. The former
teaches determining and merging "in response to determining that the
function is identified," and the latter teaches skipping "in response to
determining that the function is not identified." See Final Act. 3--4, 9.
Appellant does not allege error in the Examiner's summary of
Krishnamurthy's teachings. See App. Br. 11-12. Rather, Appellant argues
Krishnamurthy fails to teach the claim limitation because a second list is
described-the "black list"-and Appellant explains the determining and
merging steps will be skipped if the function is identified on this second list.
Id. However, Krishnamurthy's disclosure of a second list does not show
error in the Examiner's findings regarding Krishnamurthy's white list. In
particular, claim 1 does not preclude the existence of another list that
"identifies" the function, so long as the limitations required by the claim are
also performed. For example, the claim does not specify that a function "not
identified" in the determining step cannot be included ( or "identified") on
limitations: (1) if "the function is identified," the method performs the steps
of "determining" and "merging," and (2) if "the function is not identified,"
these steps are skipped. Claims App 'x 1. Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, claim 1 covers at least two methods: one in which the former
is performed, and another in which the latter is performed. See Ex parte
Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 at *8 (PTAB,
April 28, 2016) (precedential) (addressing broadest reasonable construction
of method claim including conditional limitation). We continue our
analysis, infra, because independent claims 7 and 12 require instructions
executable to perform both the former and the latter. Claims App 'x 3.
8
Appeal2018-007195
Application 14/125,785
any list or database in the system. Indeed, Appellant does not contend the
claim includes such a requirement, and Appellant fails to otherwise explain
why a function's presence on Krishnamurthy's black list demonstrates a
failure of Krishnamurthy to teach the claim language.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the responding to the determination
limitation required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's factual
findings or resulting legal conclusion of obviousness, and we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2-6, 7-11, 16, 17, 18, and 19, which fall therewith.
Claims 12-15, 20, and 21
For independent claim 12 and its dependent claims (claim 13-15, 20,
and 21 ), Appellant relies on the argument provided with respect to claim 1
that the references fail to teach or suggest the querying limitation. App. Br.
12-13. For dependent claim 21, Appellant also relies on the argument
provided with respect to claim 1 that the references fail to teach or suggest
the responding to the determination limitation. Id. at 13-14. As explained
above, these arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 12-15, 20,
and 21.
9
Appeal2018-007195
Application 14/125,785
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
10