HANCKEL, Robert

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2020

14158994 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2020)

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.
14/158,994 01/20/2014 Robert HANCKEL ORA140088 (O-309) 5981
51444 7590 01/10/2020
Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle
4700 Rockside Road
Summit One, Suite 510
Independence, OH 44131
EXAMINER
HACKENBERG, RACHEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2020 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):
DDay@KragLaw.com
MPusti@KragLaw.com
PTOMail@KragLaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT HANCKEL

Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–9 and 21–30, which constitute all the
claims in this pending application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle
International Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to systems and methods for logging event
messages using a distributed memory. Spec. ¶ 15. The Specification
describes that using a distributed memory to store log messages avoids
bottlenecks and other difficulties encountered with centralized logging. Id.
“For example, in one embodiment, the distributed memory is spread across
several host systems. Thus, multiple connection paths exist to handle
communications between the distributed memory and the logging handlers
since the distributed memory is spread across multiple hosts.” Id.

Claims 1, 21, and 27 are independent and reproduced below:
1. A non-transitory computer-storage medium storing
computer-executable instructions that when executed cause the
computer to perform at least:
defining a distributed memory to include a plurality of
memories associated with a first set of computing devices;
storing, in one or more of the plurality of memories that are part
of the distributed memory, log messages as a batch of log
messages received via network communications from a
plurality of handlers associated with a second set of
computing devices;
wherein the distributed memory is a separate component from
the plurality of handlers;
generating a formal log for combining the log messages from
the plurality of memories in the distributed memory from the
first set of computing devices;
accessing, via network connections, the plurality of memories
that are identified from the distributed memory and
collecting the log messages stored on each of the plurality of
memories;
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

3
after a defined period of time has elapsed for receiving a group
of batches of log messages from the plurality of handlers,
adding into the formal log the log messages collected from
the distributed memory associated with the first set of
computing devices; and
appending the formal log to a log history that includes one or
more previously stored formal log.
21. A computing system for operating in a cluster, the
computing system comprising:
a plurality of memories that are connected to a first set of
computing devices, wherein the plurality of memory devices
are defined as a distributed memory;
a plurality of log handlers associated with a second set of
computing devices in the cluster, wherein each of the log
handlers collects log messages in a batch of log messages
from components of the second set of computing devices;
wherein the distributed memory is not a component of the
plurality of log handlers;
wherein the plurality of log handlers are configured to
communicate with the distributed memory by multiple
network connection paths between the plurality of log
handlers and the first set of computing devices to one or
more of the plurality of memory devices;
wherein the plurality of log handlers are configured to transmit
the batch of log messages to the distributed memory for
storage via one of the multiple network connection paths;
and
a logging system configured to (i) collect the messages from the
plurality of memory devices based on the defined distributed
memory of the first set of computing devices, (ii) generate a
single log file, and (iii) store the collected log messages in
the single log file;
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

4
wherein the logging system is further configured to sort the
collected log messages in the single log file based at least on
a time stamp assigned to each log message.
27. A computer implemented method, the method
comprising:
defining a distributed memory to include a plurality of
memories associated with a first set of computing devices;
storing, in one or more of the plurality of memories that are part
of the distributed memory, log messages as a batch of log
messages received via network communications from a
plurality of handlers associated with a second set of
computing devices;
wherein the distributed memory is a separate component from
the plurality of handlers;
generating a formal log for combining the log messages from
the plurality of memories in the distributed memory from the
first set of computing devices;
accessing, via network communications, the plurality of
memories that are identified from the defined distributed
memory and collecting the log messages stored on each of
the plurality of memories;
after a defined period of time has elapsed for receiving a group
of batches of log messages from the plurality of handlers,
adding into the formal log the log messages collected from
the distributed memory associated with the first set of
computing devices; and
append the formal log to a log history that includes one or more
previously stored formal logs.

Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

5
REFERENCES
Gutti US Pat. No. 9,104,745 B1 Aug. 11, 2015
Arguelles US Pat. Pub. 2015/0120677 A1 Apr. 30, 2015
Kumar US Pat. Pub. 2011/0289092 A1 Nov. 24, 2011
Vogl US Pat. Pub. 2008/0317026 A1 Dec. 25, 2008
Hu US Pat. Pub. 2007/0083641 A1 Apr. 12, 2007
Burton US Pat. Pub. 2005/0108292 A1 May 19, 2005
Shah US Pat. Pub. 2003/0005173 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
REJECTION
Claims 1–6, 22, and 24–30 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, and Shah. Final Act. 3.
Claim 21 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Gutti, Vogl, and Shah.2 Id. at 29.
Claims 7 and 8 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Burton. Id. at 33.
Claim 9 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Hu. Id. at 37.
Claim 23 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Arguelles. Id. at 39.
OPINION
A. The Rejection of Claims 1–6, 21, 22, and 24–30
Claims 1–6, 22, and 24–30 were finally rejected as obvious
over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, and Shah. Claim 21 was finally rejected as

2 The Examiner formally identified only Gutti and Vogl, but relied on Shah
(Final Act. 29, 33). We treat the rejection as based on all three references.
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

6
obvious over Gutti, Vogl, and Shah. We discuss these two grounds of
rejection together, in one section.
1. Claims 1, 21, and 27
Claims 1, 21, and 27 are independent. Claim 1 and 27 each
require defining a distributed memory to include a plurality of
memories associated with a first set of computing devices. Claim 21
requires a plurality of memory devices that are connected to a first set
of computing devices, “wherein the plurality of memory devices are
defined as a distributed memory.”
Claims 1 and 27 each require storing in the distributed memory a
batch of log messages received via network communications from a plurality
of handlers associated with a second set of computing devices. Claim 21
requires a plurality of log handlers associated with a second set of
computing devices, wherein (1) each log handler collects log messages in a
batch of log messages from the second set of computing devices, and (2) the
log handlers are configured to transmit the batch of log messages to the
distributed memory through one of multiple network connection paths.
The Examiner identified Gutti’s firewall devices 104 as the claimed
handlers or log handlers, and Gutti’s log collectors 106 as the claimed
distributed memory including a plurality of memory devices. Ans. 3, 9.
Petitioner asserts that the identification of Gutti’s firewall devices as the
claimed handlers or log handlers is incorrect, and the identification of
Gutti’s log collectors as the claimed distributed memory also is incorrect.
App. Br. 14. The reasoning by Appellant as to why the Examiner’s
identification of these two claim elements is incorrect, however, is
inadequate. Appellant asserts the following:
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

7
Appellant believes the correct interpretation (as stated
above) is that Gutti’s firewall devices [104] correspond to the
present “components 105–120” and that Gutti’s log collectors
[106] correspond to the present “log handlers 135–150.” This
can be confirmed by the functionality of these components. For
example, Gutti’s firewall device 104 is an appliance that
performs functions (e.g. firewall policies) that generate events
reflecting what is happening.
Id. at 12. According to Appellant, Gutti’s firewall devices 104 are
analogous to components 105, 110, 115, and 120 as shown in Figure 1 of the
Specification, and Gutti’s log collectors 106 are analogous to the claimed
log handlers. Id. at 11. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s reading of
claim elements onto Gutti’s firewall devices 104 and log collectors 106 are
not consistent with the Specification and reflects an overly broad
interpretation of the claims. Id.
Appellant’s approach to identification of error by the Examiner is
untenable. The Examiner’s identification of prior art components which
meet the claim elements is not incorrect simply because Appellant can make
a different identification, supported by the Specification, from that of the
Examiner. It may well be that the Specification supports both. We do not
find any meaningful explanation by Appellant, in the Appeal Brief, as to
why Gutti’s firewall devices 104 do not perform the functions of the claimed
handlers and log handlers or why Gutti’s firewall devices 104 simply cannot
constitute handlers or log handlers, for whatever reason. Similarly, we do
not find any meaningful explanation by Appellant, in the Appeal Brief, as to
why Gutti’s log collectors 106 cannot constitute the claimed distributed
memory, for whatever reason.
The following statement of Appellant renders evident the incorrect
approach taken by Appellant: “Therefore, Gutti’s log collectors 106 more
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

8
appropriately read on the claimed log handlers.” Id. at 13 (emphasis added).
The law does not require the Examiner to have proposed the most
appropriate reading of the claims onto the prior art, i.e., the absolute very
best that can be made. Indeed, what the Examiner proposes need only be
reasonable in light of the Specification. “[T]he PTO gives a disputed claim
term its broadest reasonable interpretation during patent prosecution.” In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
1984). “Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should
only limit the claim based on the specification and prosecution history when
those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” Bigio, 381 F.3d
at 1325.
Nothing put forward by the Appellant in the Appeal Brief establishes
error in the Examiner’s identification of Gutti’s firewall devices 104 as the
claimed handlers or log handlers, and nothing put forward by the Appellant
in the Appeal Brief establishes error in the Examiner’s identification of
Gutti’s log collectors 106 as the claimed distributed memory.3 The
Examiner’s explanation of why Gutti’s firewall devices 104 constitute
handlers or log handlers and why Gutti’s log collectors 106 constitute
distributed memory is well reasoned and not contrary to anything Appellant
has directed our attention to in the Specification. Ans. 3–5, 9–11. Also, as

3 On page 15 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant asserts that the Examiner
changed his position to now regard Gutti’s log collectors 106 as the claimed
log handlers. App. Br. 15 (citing Final Act. 30–31). We have read the cited
portions of the Final Action and find no such change of position. The
Examiner’s Answer also does not acknowledge any change of position.
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

9
is required by each independent claim, Gutti’s log collectors 106 as a
distributed memory are not a component of Gutti’s firewall devices 104 as
log handlers, as shown in Gutti’s Figure 1A reproduced below:4

Figure 1A is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of Gutti’s network
environment. Gutti, 1:19–20.
With respect to claim 21, Appellant argues that Gutti does not disclose
“wherein the plurality of log handlers are configured to transmit the batch of
log messages to the distributed memory for storage via one of the multiple
network connection paths.” App. Br. 15. The Examiner provides the
following response: “In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully
disagrees. Gutti teaches on aggregating of log messages and formal
reports. . . . Gutti’s log collectors are equated to the distributed memory.

4 It is unnecessary for the Examiner to rely on Shah for any teaching that log
collectors 106 should not be a component of firewall devices 104.
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

10
The log collectors receive logs in batches from the log handlers (firewall
devices) and the logs can be stored in a distributed manner.” Ans. 6. These
representations by the Examiner are supported by the record. See Gutti,
2:45–52. Specifically, Gutti describes that “event logs generated by firewall
devices 104 are sent to log collector appliance 106 for indexing, replication,
and storage.” Id. at 2:50–52. Figure 1A of Gutti, reproduced above, also
illustrates the path of such transfer. In light of such disclosure of Gutti,
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Appellant further argues the following:
Appellant respectfully submits that the [Final Office Action]
fails to explain or show how assigning firewall devices to log
collectors actually teaches “defining a distributed memory to
include a plurality of memories associated with a first set of
computing devices.” Assigning firewall devices to log
collectors does not teach or suggest a distributed memory or that
a distributed memory has been “defined.”
Appeal Br. 19. Appellant does not explain what, in Appellant’s view,
constitutes “defining” a distributed memory or why the fact of having a
distributed memory does not constitute such defining. Appellant does not
point to any specific action or step, described in the Specification, that
constitutes such “defining.” The law does not require ipsis verbis disclosure
in the prior art, e.g., an express statement in Gutti that a distributed memory
is “defined.”
As explained by the Examiner, Gutti describes that “each firewall
device is assigned a set of one or more log collectors 106.” Ans. 11 (citing
Gutti, 2:59–60). Also as explained by the Examiner, in the context of
Gutti’s Figure 1A, data is distributively stored among multiple log collectors
106 within a cluster. Id. (citing Gutti, 3:7–14). Figure 1A of Gutti also
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

11
shows log collectors 106 as separate components with respectively separate
paths of access from log handlers 104. Such disclosures of Gutti support the
Examiner’s finding that Gutti discloses “defining” a distributed memory.
Thus, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s accounting for this limitation
“storing, in one or more of the plurality of memories that are part of the
distributed memory, log messages as a batch of log messages received via
network communications from a plurality of handlers associated with a
second set of computing devices” of claim 1 is inadequate. Appeal Br. 19–
20. But in explaining why the Examiner’s reasoning is inadequate,5
Appellant refers only to a part of the Examiner’s reasoning, not the
explanation of why log collectors receive from firewall devices log
messages as a batch of log messages via network communications from a
plurality of handlers associated with a second set of computing devices. Id.
(citing Examiner’s citation to Gutti, 3:7–17 but not Examiner’s citation to
Gutti, 4:8–17 (Final Act. 4)). Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is
unpersuasive.
We have reviewed the pertinent explanation from the Examiner, not
discussed by Appellant, and have no reason to find it as adequate. Further,
we note in addition that Gutti expressly states that “[i]n various
embodiments, the event log may be received by itself or as a part of a log
buffer.” Gutti, 3:67–4:1. A log buffer includes data accumulated from a

5 Appellant asserts that moving data around among different log collectors is
not storing log messages as a batch of log messages received via network
communications from a plurality of handlers associated with a second set of
computing devices. Appeal Br. 20.
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

12
plurality of event logs. Id, at 3:58–59. That disclosure further supports the
Examiner’s reasoning, which has not been addressed by the Appellant.
With respect to claim 21, Appellant argues that Gutti does not disclose
“a logging system configured to (i) collect the messages from the plurality of
memory devices based on the defined distributed memory of the first set of
computing devices.” App. Br. 16. The argument is that Gutti discloses
sending queries to the log collectors and then the stored data that satisfy the
query are collected in a report that is generated and returned. Id. According
to Appellant, the providing of stored data in the log collectors that satisfy a
query does not meet the logging system limitation quoted above. We
disagree. Appellant has taken a very restricted and overly narrow view of
the recited claim language. Gutti describes that “a log collector is capable of
retrieving (i.e., reading) data that it and/or other log collectors of an
associated cluster have that satisfy a query.” Gutti, 4:47–49. In the context
of the Specification, it is implicit that the queries are directed to the
messages stored in the log collectors. As discussed above, the log collectors
constitute the distributed memory including a plurality of memories. Thus,
the data that is returned in response to a query are messages that have been
collected from the log collectors. Appellant has not given an adequate
reason not to regard them as such.
For the limitations “generate a single file” and “store the collected log
messages in the single log file” of claim 21, Appellant simply argues that
because Gutti does not collect the log messages from the plurality of
memories, these limitations also are not met. Id. at 16. As noted above, we
are unpersuaded that Gutti does not disclose “a logging system configured to
(i) collect the messages from the plurality of memory devices based on the
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

13
defined distributed memory of the first set of computing devices.” The
Examiner relies on the Gutti disclosure, discussed above, about the system
returning stored messages from log collectors, i.e., the distributed memory,
that satisfy a query. Final Act. 5.
Claim 27, however, recites a much more specific limitation:
“accessing, via network connections, the plurality of memories that are
identified from the defined distributed memory and collecting the log
messages stored on each of the plurality of memories.” The limitation is
similar to the limitation on claim 21 of “a logging system configured to (i)
collect the messages from the plurality of memory devices based on the
defined distributed memory of the first set of computing devices,” but
requires collecting messages from each of the plurality of memories. Gutti’s
disclosure is inadequate to account for the each requirement of this
limitation. There is no certainty that matching results will actually reside in
each of the plurality of memories included in the distributed memory.
Therefore, the Examiner has not made an adequate accounting for this
limitation of claim 27.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 21, but has shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection f claim 27. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, and Shah. We also
sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Gutti, Vogl, and Shah. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, and Shah.

Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

14
2. Claims 2–6, 22, 24–26, and 28–30
Each of claims 2–6 depends directly from claim 1. Because Appellant
has not separately argued the merits of claims 2–6 from that of claim 1, these
claims stand or fall with independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Each of claims 22 and 24–26 depends directly from claim 21.
Because Appellant has not separately argued the merits of claims 22 and 24–
26 from that of claim 21, these claims stand or fall with independent claim
21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Each of claims 28–30 depends directly from claim 27. Because a
dependent claim incorporates all of the limitations of the claim from which it
depends, the deficiency of the rejection of claim 27, discussed above, carries
through to each of claims 28–30.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, and Shah. We also sustain the
rejection of claims 22 and 24–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Gutti, Vogl, and Shah. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 28–30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, and Shah.
B. The Rejection of Claims 7 and 8 as
Obvious over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Burton
Claim 7 depends directly from claim 1. Because Appellant has not
separately argued the merits of claim 7 from that claim 1, claim 7 stands or
falls with independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Burton.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites the following:
further comprising instructions for:
registering a handler as part of the plurality of handlers by
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

15
providing configuration information to the handler in
response to a request from the handler to join a distributed
logging system, wherein the plurality of handlers are part of
the second set of computing devices that dynamically
registers and deregisters components as a current processing
load changes.
The Examiner’s accounting for this additional limitation is on
pages 35–36 of the Final Office Action. The reasoning is disjointed
and has little, if any, application to log handlers. First, it is explained
that Burton discloses a storage pool management module that
allocates physical storage volumes to a “virtual volume,” and mapping
of virtual addresses to physical memory addresses by use of a lookup
table. Id. at 35–36. The Examiner states that Burton discloses
dynamic adjustment of storage capacity of the virtual volume to
accommodate changing amount of storage utilization. Id. at 36 (citing
Burton, Abstr.). Then, the Examiner explains as follows:
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made that Gutti (as modified
by Vogl & Kumar & Shah) would have wished to modify the
invention per Burton to include the details of the handlers
adding/removing components in the system as well as
dynamically adjusting the log storage size. It would be essential
to be able to adjust the log storage size of a logging system. This
would enable the system to have a method of ensuring that
storage is not overwhelmed or underutilized. This would allow
more flexibility and organization within the logging system to
have an automatic adjustment to the storage as needed. Thus
would be especially needed in a system where there is a plurality
of log handlers. One would have been motivated to add this
feature to the invention in order to have a complete and reliable
logging storage and report system.
Id. at 36–37.
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

16
The Examiner appears to regard as equivalent log handlers and
storage devices, without explanation. We see no such equivalency. That
Burton discloses dynamically adding and deleting actual memory and
managing such dynamic adjustment bears little relationship to registering
and deregistering log handlers as claimed. Per independent claim 1, it is the
distributed memory, separate from the log handlers, which store log
messages, not the log handlers which transmit log messages to the
distributed memory. We agree with Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner’s reasoning bears little relationship to the claim elements as
claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gutti,
Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Burton.
C. The Rejection of Claim 9 as
Obvious over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Hu
Claim 9 depends directly from claim 1. Because Appellant has not
separately argued the merits of claim 9 from that claim 1, claim 9 stands or
falls with independent claim 21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Hu.
D. The Rejection of Claim 23 as
Obvious over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Arguelles
Claim 23 depends directly from claim 21 and further recites the
following:
further comprising one or more log proxies wherein each log
proxy is connected to one of the multiple network connection
paths for communicating the batch of log messages from one or
more of the plurality of log handlers and one or more of the
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

17
plurality of memory devices in the distributed memory; and
wherein the one or more log proxies include executable
instructions for tracking the plurality of log handlers by
monitoring when each of the batch of log message are received,
wherein receiving the batch of log messages acts as a heartbeat
communication that is provided to the log proxies at a regular
interval from one of the plurality of handlers.
Appellant argues the following:
According to the interpretation in the FOA, Gutti’s log
collectors are the claimed log handlers, the claimed distributed
memory, and also are the log proxies that are connected to the
network paths between themselves (since the log collectors are
allegedly both the log handlers and the distributed memory).
This is technically incorrect and unnecessarily broad. Gutti fails
to actually teach or suggest the claimed elements. The rejection
is improper and thus should be reversed.
App. Br. 22. The argument is misplaced, because the Examiner has not
relied on the log collectors of Gutti as both the log handlers and the
distributed memory. Rather, the Examiner identifies Gutti’s firewall devices
104 as the claimed log handlers and Gutti’s log collectors 106 as the claimed
distributed memory. Ans. 3–5. Further, the Examiner states that the
combination of Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, and Shah “does not teach explicitly on
log proxies.” Final Act. 41. Instead, the Examiner relies on Arguelles as
teaching the log proxies. Id. at 42. Thus, Appellant’s argument, as
reproduced above, is without merit.
Appellant has not shown error in the rejection of claim 23 as obvious
over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Arguelles. We sustain the rejection of
claim 23 as obvious over Gutti, Kumar, Vogl, Shah, and Arguelles.

Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

18
E. Inappropriate New Arguments in the Reply
The propriety of the contents in a Reply is governed by 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41. Specifically, 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 (b)(2) states, inter alia:
Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not
raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument
raised in the examiner’s answer, including any designated new
ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for
purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.
There are two inappropriate new arguments in the reply, for which
good cause for inclusion in the reply has not been shown by Appellant.
1. Gutti’s Log Collectors as Distributed Memory
For the first time, Appellant in the Reply asserts that a distributed
memory is a term of art in computer science. Reply 2, 5. Implicit in that
assertion is the new argument that Gutti does not disclose a distributed
memory because Gutti’s log collectors are not a distributed memory. That
argument extends beyond the initial argument in the Appeal Brief that Gutti
does not disclose the act or step of “defining” a distributed memory. The
new argument is different in that it simply does not recognize Gutti’s log
collectors 106 as a distributed memory, and does not focus on the act or step
of “defining.” Reply 2, 5. Appellant in its Appeal Brief nowhere asserts
that Gutti’s log collectors 106 factually do not constitute a distributed
memory, as it now argues in the Reply. Appellant does not make any
explanation as to why good cause supports the making of this new argument
in the Reply. Thus, it constitutes an inappropriate new argument which is
not entitled to consideration.
2. Second Set of Computing Devices
In the Reply, Appellant argues for the first time that the Examiner has
not accounted for the limitation in claim 21 that the log handlers is
Appeal 2019-001071
Application 14/158,994

19
associated with a second set of computing devices and that the log handlers
collect messages from components of the second set of computing devices.
Reply 3. The focus in the Reply is on the second set of computing devices.
In the Appeal Brief, however, Appellant made no argument that the second
set of computing devices or components within the second set of computing
devices were not accounted for by the Examiner. Appellant does not make
any explanation as to why good cause supports the making of this new
argument in the Reply. Thus, it constitutes an inappropriate new argument
which is not entitled to consideration.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 22,
24–30
103 Gutti, Kumar,
Vogl, Shah
1–16, 22,
24–26
27–30
21 103 Gutti, Vogl, Shah 21
7, 8 103 Gutti, Kumar,
Vogl, Shah, Burton
7 8
9 103 Gutti, Kumar,
Vogl, Shah, Hu
9
23 103 Gutti, Kumar,
Vogl, Shah,
Arguelles
23
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 7, 9,
21–26
8, 27–30

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART