2020004600 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 2021

2020004600 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

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. 15/301,640 10/03/2016 Alexander Storl STORL 8052 20151 7590 03/02/2021 HENRY M FEIEREISEN, LLC HENRY M FEIEREISEN 35 WEST 35TH STREET SUITE 900 NEW YORK, NY 10001 EXAMINER GEMIGNANI, ANTHONY G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2021 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): INFO@FEIEREISENLLC.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte ALEXANDER STORL, STEFFEN PAUER, and MIKHAIL ROSHCHIN1 _____________ Appeal 2020-004600 Application 15/301,6402 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EVANS, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 16–32. Appeal Br. 2–3. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 A telephonic Oral Hearing was held February 11, 2021. A transcript will be made of Record in due course. Appeal 2020-004600 Application 15/301,640 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for automatically processing a number of log files of differing types of an automation system of a technical facility. See Abstract; Claim 16. Claims 16, and 30–32 are independent. Illustrative Claim 16, is reproduced below with some formatting added. 16. A method for automatically processing log files of different types of an automation system of a technical facility, said method comprising: generating during operation of a technical facility, by one or more components of the automation system, a plurality of different types of log files, the log files describing one or more events of one or more components and/or component groups that have occurred; concatenating one or more data sets of each of the plurality of log files; summarizing the concatenated data sets of all the plurality of log files in a summary file; sorting the data sets of the plurality of log files in the summary file; compressing the data sets in the summary file; coding the compressed data sets in the summary file by a numeric, alphabetic or alphanumeric code; sorting and assigning, by way of a similarity operation, the compressed data sets established on the basis of the numeric, alphabetic or alphanumeric code to groups with associated group codes, wherein the groups with group codes are established for grouping of similar and/or identical numeric codes that describe an event; decoding the group code of the assigned one of the groups; Appeal 2020-004600 Application 15/301,640 3 outputting an alphanumeric message part of the one or more data sets of a group and the decoded group code; and storing the alphanumeric message part and the decoded group in a memory. PRIOR ART Name3 Reference Date Unger US 5,991,713 Nov. 23, 1999 Beavers US 2003/0167406 A1 Sept. 4, 2003 Brown US 2010/0094591 A1 Apr. 15, 2010 Botros US 2011/0191373 A1 Aug. 4, 2011 Florance US 2013/0332877 A1 Dec. 12, 2013 Bisdikian US 2014/0013334 A1 Jan. 9, 2014 Meunier US 2014/0101456 A1 Apr. 10, 2014 Duftler US 2014/0298341 A1 Oct. 2, 2014 REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE5 1. Claims 16, 17, and 30–32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beavers and Bisdikian. Final Act. 5–9. 2. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beavers, Bisdikian, Brown, and Florance. Final Act. 10–11. 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act 2. 5 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed October 28, 2019, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed March 27, 2019, the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 29, 2020, and the Specification (“Spec.”) filed October 3, 2016. Appeal 2020-004600 Application 15/301,640 4 3. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beavers, Bisdikian, and Meunier. Final Act. 11–12. 4. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beavers, Bisdikian, Meunier, and Unger. Final Act. 12. 5. Claims 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beavers, Bisdikian, Meunier, Unger, and Botros. Final Act. 12–14. 6. Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beavers, Bisdikian, Meunier, Unger, Botros, and Duftler. Final Act. 14–15. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER The Examiner objects to Claims 26–29 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 12–18 and 22–24 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded of error. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. CLAIMS 16, 17, AND 30–32: OBVIOUSNESS OVER BEAVERS AND BISDIKIAN. Generating . . . a plurality of different log files. Appellant argues these claims as a group specifically over the recitations of Claim 16. Appeal Br. 5 (“Each of the independent claims 16 and 30-32 recites ‘generating during operation of a technical facility, by one Appeal 2020-004600 Application 15/301,640 5 or more components of an automation system a plurality of different log files.’”). Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 103 rejections on the basis of Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Independent Claim 16 recites, inter alia: [G]enerating during operation of a technical facility, by one or more components of the automation system, a plurality of different types of log files, the log files describing one or more events of one or more components and/or component groups that have occurred. Appeal Br. 13 (Claim App’x.). Appellant contends Beavers fails to teach this feature. Appeal Br. 5. To teach this limitation, the Examiner cites Beavers as disclosing: “the enterprise could be a business that operates a number of pieces of machinery and the machinery is monitored for performance.” Final Act. 6 (quoting Beavers ¶ 185). The Examiner further cites Beaver as disclosing: “a method of producing at least one alert indication based on a number of events derived from the enterprise. The method comprises providing a plurality of enterprise device outputs, at least a portion of the outputs having different formats, and wherein each output contains an event relating to an enterprise device.” Id. (quoting Beavers ¶ 12). The Examiner completes this teaching by finding Beavers teaches event streams correspond to log files. Id. (citing Beavers ¶ 38). Appellant contends the cited portions of Beavers “do not disclose generating one or more log files.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues “Beaver discloses translating event streams.” Id. at 6 (citing Beavers ¶ 38). Appeal 2020-004600 Application 15/301,640 6 Appellant argues Beavers makes no reference to the machinery generating log files. Id. Appellant argues: Moreover, the event streams disclosed by Beavers at paragraph [0038] may be understood as a data stream comprising a sequence of digitally encoded coherent signals (packets of data or data packets) used to transmit or receive information that is in the process of being transmitted - no reference is made to data files or more particularly log files. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner finds Beavers discloses: For example, the enterprise could be a business that operates a number of pieces of machinery and the machinery is monitored for performance. The alerts from this machinery could be processed just as the security alerts described above so that the automated manager monitoring the machinery is not overwhelmed with useless information. Ans. 3–4. Moreover, the Examiner interprets “Beavers disclosing ‘alerts from this machinery’ as disclosing one or more of the pieces of machinery in the enterprise generating alerts.” Ans. 4. “Examiner is of the position that Beavers does disclose enterprise devices generating alerts.” Id. Independent Claim 16 recites, inter alia, “generating . . . a plurality of different types of log files.” Independent Claims 30–32 contain commensurate recitations. The Examiner acknowledges that Appellant contends Beavers fails to disclose generating log files. Ans. 3 (“Appellant appears to take the position that the Beavers reference does not disclose generating during the operation of a technical facility, by one or more components of an automation system a plurality of different log files (Emphasis added by Examiner)”). Notwithstanding Appellant’s argument that Beavers fails to disclose generating the claimed log files, the Examiner Appeal 2020-004600 Application 15/301,640 7 finds Beavers discloses generating alerts. Ans. 4 (“Examiner is of the position that Beavers does disclose enterprise devices generating alerts.”). The Examiner’s findings must relate to the claim terms. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted) (finding “the name of the game is the claim”). Because the Examiner fails to show the prior art teaches “generating during operation of a technical facility, by one or more components of the automation system, a plurality of different types of log files, as claimed, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 16, 17, and 30–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CLAIM 18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER BEAVERS, BISDIKIAN, BROWN, AND FLORANCE. Appellant contends the combination of Brown and Florance fails to cure the deficiencies argued above in connection with claim 16. Appeal Br. 8 (Argument B). The Examiner finds: “[b]y addressing the Appellant’s arguments above, Examiner has responded to subparts B, D, E, and F in the Appellant’s arguments section.” Ans. 10. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CLAIM 19: OBVIOUSNESS OVER BEAVERS, BISDIKIAN, AND MEUNIER. The Examiner does not apply Meunier to teach the limitation disputed above. See Ans. 10. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2020-004600 Application 15/301,640 8 CLAIM 20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER BEAVERS, BISDIKIAN, MEUNIER, AND UNGER. Appellant contends the combination of Meunier, and Unger fails to cure the deficiencies argued above in connection with claim 16. Appeal Br. 9 (Argument D). The Examiner finds: “[b]y addressing the Appellant’s arguments above, Examiner has responded to subparts B, D, E, and F in the Appellant’s arguments section.” Ans. 10. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CLAIMS 21–23: OBVIOUSNESS OVER BEAVERS, BISDIKIAN, MEUNIER, UNGER, AND BOTROS. Appellant contends Botros fails to cure the deficiencies argued above in connection with claim 16. Appeal Br. 10 (Argument E). The Examiner finds: “[b]y addressing the Appellant’s arguments above, Examiner has responded to subparts B, D, E, and F in the Appellant’s arguments section.” Ans. 10. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CLAIMS 24 AND 25: OBVIOUSNESS OVER BEAVERS, BISDIKIAN, MEUNIER, UNGER, BOTROS, AND DUFTLER. Appellant contends Duftler fails to cure the deficiencies argued above in connection with claim 16. Appeal Br. 10 (Argument F). Appeal 2020-004600 Application 15/301,640 9 The Examiner finds: “[b]y addressing the Appellant’s arguments above, Examiner has responded to subparts B, D, E, and F in the Appellant’s arguments section.” Ans. 10. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION6 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 16, 17, 30– 32 103 Beavers, Bisdikian 16, 17, 30– 32 18 103 Beavers, Bisdikian, Brown, Florance 18 19 103 Beavers, Bisdikian, Meunier 19 20 103 Beavers, Bisdikian, Meunier, Unger 20 21–23 103 Beavers, Bisdikian, Meunier, Unger, Botros 21–23 24, 25 103 Beavers, Bisdikian, Meunier, Unger, Botros, Duftler 24, 25 Overall Outcome 16–32 REVERSED 6 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons discussed herein, we need not address Appellant’s further arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).