Splunk Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 23, 2021

2020000736 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 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.
14/266,523 04/30/2014 Roy Arsan SPLK0009US 6900
138771 7590 08/23/2021
Artegis Law Group, LLP -SPLUNK, Inc.
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
COBB, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2021 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):
algdocketing@artegislaw.com
jmatthews@artegislaw.com
sjohnson@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ROY ARSAN, ALEXANDER RAITZ, CLARK ALLAN, and
CARY GLEN NOEL
________________

Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JASON J. CHUNG, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–18 and 20–47.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention relates to extracting and viewing data generated by
information systems. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
is reproduced below with emphasis denoting the disputed limitation:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, SPLUNK Inc. is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 19 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 22.
Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523

2
receiving at a server machine a continuous stream of real-
time, time-dependent data values from a data source that is
external to the server machine, wherein the data values reflect
activity within an information technology infrastructure of an
organization;
maintaining by the server machine a three-dimensional
model that includes a first three-dimensional graphical object
that has multiple attributes mapped to different aspects of the
real-time, time-dependent data values, wherein coordinates of
the first three-dimensional graphical object within the three-
dimensional model are determined based on one or more logical
relationships between non-physical attributes of components of
the information technology infrastructure;
rendering by the server machine portions of the three-
dimensional model as viewed from one or more selected
perspectives while moving along a path from a first position in
the three-dimensional model to a second position in the three-
dimensional model based on user navigational input, wherein the
rendered portions of the three-dimensional model include the
first three-dimensional graphical object, and the multiple
attributes of the first three-dimensional graphical object are
updated in real-time to visually convey changes in the different
aspects of the real-time, time-dependent data values;
causing the rendered portions of the three-dimensional
model to be displayed.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

REJECTIONS3
The Examiner rejects claims 1–18 and 20–47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans.
3–4.

3 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was withdrawn. See Advisory Action
mailed on February 28, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523

3
The Examiner rejects claims 1–18 and 20–47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as being indefinite. Ans. 4–6.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6–17, 20, 21, 27, 31–34, 36–40, and
42–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Sacerdoti (US 6,188,403 B1; issued Feb. 13, 2001), Tesler (US 6,111,578;
issued Aug. 29, 2000), Haigh-Hutchinson (US 2008/0070684 A1; published
Mar. 20, 2008), Khan (US 2012/0296609 A1; published Nov. 22, 2012),
Prabu (US 2014/0114970 A1; filed Mar. 8, 2013), and Bitincka. Ans. 6–29.
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Sacerdoti, Tesler, Haigh-
Hutchinson, Khan, Prabu, Bitincka, and Mages (US 2011/0169927 A1;
published July 14, 2011). Ans. 29–34.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sacerdoti, Tesler, Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu, Bitincka, and Chiu (US 2005/0183041 A1; published Aug. 18,
2005). Ans. 34–35.
The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sacerdoti, Tesler, Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu, Bitincka, and Coale (US 2007/0094041 A1; published Apr. 26,
2007). Ans. 35–36.
The Examiner rejects claims 22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Sacerdoti, Tesler, Haigh-
Hutchinson, Khan, Prabu, Bitincka, and Risch (US 2004/0090472 A1;
published May 13, 2004). Ans. 36–39.
Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523

4
The Examiner rejects claims 23, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Sacerdoti, Tesler, Haigh-
Hutchinson, Khan, Prabu, Bitincka, Risch, and Coale. Ans. 39–47.
The Examiner rejects claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sacerdoti, Tesler, Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu, Bitincka, and Judelson (US 2010/0066559 A1; published Mar.
18, 2010). Ans. 47–49.
The Examiner rejects claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sacerdoti, Tesler, Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu, Bitincka, Judelson, and Ruble (US 2014/0047328 A1; filed
May 21, 2013). Ans. 47–52.
The Examiner rejects claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sacerdoti, Tesler, Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu, Bitincka, Song (US 2006/0044307 A1; published Mar. 2,
2006), and Plattner (US 6,320,586 B1; issued Nov. 20, 2001). Ans. 52–54.
The Examiner rejects claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sacerdoti, Tesler, Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu, Bitincka, Song, and Lum (US 2013/0144916 A1; published
June 6, 2013). Ans. 54–56.
ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1–18 and 20–47 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The Examiner finds the limitation “wherein coordinates of the first
three-dimensional graphical object within the three-dimensional model are
determined based on one or more logical relationships between non-physical
attributes of components of the information technology infrastructure” fails
to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 3–4, 58–60 (citing
Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523

5
Spec. ¶¶ 21, 31, 84); Final Act. 11–12.
Appellant argues the Specification describes size, color, and
transparency are physical attributes of a particular node. Appeal Br. 12–13
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 20–22); Reply Br. 3–5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 20–22, 31).
Appellant further argues the Specification describes an example of a non-
physical attribute is an average number of failed attempts to log into a
particular web site, where an attribute (such as the height) of a three-
dimensional node that corresponds to the data object fluctuates in real-time
as the average number changes, which provides adequate written description
support of the limitation from the preceding paragraph. Appeal Br. 12–13
(citing Spec. ¶ 100); Reply Br. 3–5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 70–74, 84, 88, 100, 114,
115). We agree with Appellant.
The determination of whether a patent meets the written description
requirement is a “question of fact, judged from the perspective of one of
ordinary skill in the art as of the relevant filing date.” Falko-Gunter Falkner
v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64). “To fulfill the written description
requirement, the patent specification must describe an invention in sufficient
detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor
invented what is claimed.” Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d
1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Our reviewing court has
cautioned, however, that “[t]he disclosure as originally filed does not . . .
have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at
issue.” Id. at 1364. “Although [the applicant] does not have to describe
exactly the subject matter claimed … the description must clearly allow
persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the applicant] invented
Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523

6
what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(citations omitted). Put another way, “the applicant must . . . convey with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought,
he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563-
64. The written description, although it need not include information that is
already known and available to the experienced public, must be in sufficient
detail to satisfy the statutory requirements, employing “[w]ords, structures,
figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed
invention.” Space Systems/Loral, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 405 F.3d
985, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107
F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Such disclosure must do more than merely disclose that which would
render the claimed invention obvious. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle &
Co., 358 F.3d 916, 923 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli
Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566-67 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also PowerOasis,
Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(explaining that § 112, ¶ 1 “requires that the written description actually or
inherently disclose the claim element”). Finally, “[p]recisely how close the
original description must come to comply with the description requirement
of § 112 must be determined on a case-by-case basis.” Eiselstein v. Frank,
52 F.3d 1035, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).
In this case, the Specification inherently discusses the disputed
limitation. That is, the Specification discusses an example of an average
number of failed attempts to log into a particular web site (e.g., the average
number of failed attempts to log in provides support for the limitation “non-
physical attributes”), where an attribute of a three-dimensional node (e.g.,
Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523

7
three-dimensional node provides support for the limitation “coordinates of
the first three-dimensional graphical object”) that corresponds to the data
object (e.g., corresponds to the data object provides support for the
limitation “determined based on”) fluctuates in real-time as the average
number changes (e.g., the “average number changes” provides support for
the limitation “logical relationships between non-physical attributes of
components of the information technology infrastructure”). Spec. ¶ 100.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of:
(1) independent claims 1, 36, and 37; and (2) dependent claims 2–18, 20–35,
and 38–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
II. Claims 1–18 and 20–47 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The Examiner concludes the limitation “wherein coordinates of the
first three-dimensional graphical object within the three-dimensional model
are determined based on one or more logical relationships between non-
physical attributes of components of the information technology
infrastructure” is indefinite because a skilled artisan is unable to ascertain
the metes and bounds of this limitation from reading the Specification. Ans.
4–6, 61–62; Final Act. 12–13.
Appellant argues the Specification describes size, color, and
transparency are physical attributes of a particular node. Appeal Br. 13–14
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 20–22); Reply Br. 5–6 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 20–22, 31).
Appellant further argues the Specification describes an example of a non-
physical attribute is an average number of failed attempts to log into a
particular web site, where an attribute (such as the height) of a three-
dimensional node that corresponds to the data object fluctuates in real-time
as the average number changes, which provides adequate written description
Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523

8
support of the limitation from the preceding paragraph. Appeal Br. 13–14
(citing Spec. ¶ 100); Reply Br. 5–6 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 39, 72, 73, 100, 114,
115). We agree with Appellant.
As discussed supra in § I., the Specification inherently provides
written description support for the disputed limitation. Moreover, we
conclude that the written description clearly provides the metes and bounds
for the limitation “wherein coordinates of the first three-dimensional
graphical object within the three-dimensional model are determined based
on one or more logical relationships between non-physical attributes of
components of the information technology infrastructure.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of:
(1) independent claims 1, 36, and 37; and (2) dependent claims 2–18, 20–35,
and 38–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
III. Claims 1–18 and 20–47 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds Khan teaches a heads up display illustrates
different colors in a display and colored bars displaying energy used by an
electrical outlet, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “wherein
coordinates of the first three-dimensional graphical object within the three-
dimensional model are determined based on one or more logical
relationships between non-physical attributes of components of the
information technology infrastructure” recited in claims 1, 36, and 37. Ans.
11–12 (citing Khan ¶¶ 57, 60–62); Final Act. 19 (citing Khan ¶¶ 57, 60–62).
Appellant argues Khan merely teaches characteristic and sensor data
related to physical attributes of a building, such as geometry, spatial
relationships, aspects of building components, energy consumption at a
physical outlet, but fails to teach the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 15;
Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523

9
Reply Br. 6–8. In addition, Appellant argues Khan merely teaches a
rendering technique for displaying data in a 2D view of a 3D building
model, but fails to teach the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply
Br. 6–8. We disagree with Appellant.
Khan teaches a heads up display illustrates different colors (i.e., the
color is one dimension) in a display and colored bars (i.e., the colored bars
have two dimensions, one in the X direction and the other in the Y direction)
displaying energy (i.e., non-physical attributes) used by an electrical outlet
(i.e., graphical object within the three-dimensional model are determined
based on one or more logical relationships), which the Examiner maps to the
limitation “wherein coordinates of the first three-dimensional graphical
object within the three-dimensional model are determined based on one or
more logical relationships between non-physical attributes of components of
the information technology infrastructure” recited in claims 1, 36, and 37.
Ans. 11–12 (citing Khan ¶¶ 57, 60–62); Final Act. 19 (citing Khan ¶¶ 57,
60–62).
Appellant does not argue claims 2–18 and 20–47 separately with
particularity. Appeal Br. 14–16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 36, and 37; and (2) dependent claims
2–18, 20–35, and 38–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523

10
CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18, 20–
47
112(a) Written
Description
1–18, 20–
47
1–18, 20–
47
112(b) Indefiniteness 1–18, 20–
47
1, 2, 6–17,
20, 21, 27,
31–34, 36–
40, 42–47
103 Sacerdoti, Tesler,
Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu,
Bitincka
1, 2, 6–17,
20, 21, 27,
31–34, 36–
40, 42–47

3, 4, 30 103 Sacerdoti, Tesler,
Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu,
Bitincka, Mages
3, 4, 30
5 103 Sacerdoti, Tesler,
Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu,
Bitincka, Chiu
5
18 103 Sacerdoti, Tesler,
Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu,
Bitincka, Coale
18
22, 25 103 Sacerdoti, Tesler,
Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu,
Bitincka, Risch
22, 25
23, 24, 26 103 Sacerdoti, Tesler,
Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu,
Bitincka, Risch,
Coale
23, 24, 26
28 103 Sacerdoti, Tesler,
Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu,
Bitincka, Judelson
28
Appeal 2020-000736
Application 14/266,523

11

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

29 103 Sacerdoti, Tesler,
Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu,
Bitincka, Judelson,
Ruble
29
35 103 Sacerdoti, Tesler,
Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu,
Bitincka, Song,
Plattner
35
41 103 Sacerdoti, Tesler,
Haigh-Hutchinson,
Khan, Prabu,
Bitincka, Song,
Lum
41
Overall
Outcome
1–18, 20–
47