AppDynamics, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 1, 2021

2019005440 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 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.
14/449,065 07/31/2014 Gautam Borah 1210018.U 2411
126982 7590 01/01/2021
Behmke Innovation Group LLC
One Marina Park Drive
Suite 1410
Boston, MA 02210
EXAMINER
MINCEY, JERMAINE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/01/2021 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):
patent@bigiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GAUTAM BORAH
Appeal 2019-005440
Application 14/449,065
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13–17, 19–24, 26–31, and 33. Claims
1–12, 18, 25, and 32 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cisco
Technology, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005440
Application 14/449,065

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to memory management in virtualized
computing. Appellant summarizes the embodiments of the Specification as
providing for more efficient processing, storage and querying of metrics
from a distributed system from which large volumes of metrics are collected.
Spec. ¶ 19. Claim 13, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in
italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
13. A system for processing metrics, comprising:
a processor;
a memory; and
one or more modules stored in memory and executable by
a processor to perform operations including:
receiving, by a persistence store on a server, a
plurality of payloads which each include time series data
associated with monitoring a distributed transaction, the
payloads received during a time period comprised of a
plurality of sub-time periods;
storing, by the persistence store on the server, each
of the received time series data of the plurality of time
series data along with a first key and sub-time period data
corresponding to a time a particular time series data was
received;
generating a bit map corresponding to each sub-
time period in which time series data was received,
wherein the bitmap indicates which sub-time periods
within the time period received at least one payload of the
plurality of payloads;
aggregating the time series data associated with the
sub-time periods that are indicated in the bitmap as having
received at least one payload into a single byte array; and
after the first time period ends, storing the bitmap
and the byte array with a second key and the time series
data associated with the first key is deleted.
Appeal 2019-005440
Application 14/449,065

3
Appendix A at 1–2.
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lomet US 2008/0228795 A1 Sept. 18, 2008
Anderson et al. US 2010/0211618 A1 Aug. 19, 2010
Bhave et al. US 2013/0091105 A1 April 11, 2013
Kulkarni et al. US 2014/0025685 A1 Jan. 23, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 13–17, 20–24, and 27–31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bhave, Kulkarni and Lomet. Final Act. 17–18.
Claims 19, 26, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhave, Kulkarni, Lomet, and Anderson. Final Act. 33.3
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Bhave,
Kulkarni and Lomet teaches or suggests the disputed limitations:
generating a bit map corresponding to each sub-time period in
which time series data was received, wherein the bitmap
indicates which sub-time periods within the time period received
at least one payload of the plurality of payloads; [and]

2 All citations herein to the references are to the first named inventor/author
only.
3 The Examiner erroneously omits claims 26 and 33 from the rejection
heading, but addresses these two claims in the body of the rejection. The
Examiner also erroneously includes claim 20, rejected under the former
rejection, in this heading, but does not address it in the body. Final Act. 33.
Appeal 2019-005440
Application 14/449,065

4
aggregating the time series data associated with the sub-time
periods that are indicated in the bitmap as having received at least
one payload into a single byte array,
as recited in claim 13?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 13 as being obvious over the teachings of
Bhave, Kulkarni and Lomet. Final Act. 17–21. The Examiner finds Bhave
generally teaches receiving and storing time series data in a persistence store
which includes a first key and sub-time period data. Final Act. 18–19 (citing
Bhave ¶¶ 25, 35, 57, 60, 61). The Examiner determines that Bhave does not
each either of the disputed limitations, and instead relies on Kulkarni. Final
Act. 19. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Kulkarni teaches
“generating a bit map corresponding to each sub-time period in which time
series data was received” (Kulkarni ¶ 85), and also teaches “wherein the
bitmap indicates which sub-time periods within the time period received at
least one payload of the plurality of payloads” (Kulkarni ¶¶ 48, 89). Final
Act. 19. The Examiner also finds that Kulkarni teaches “aggregating the
time series data associated with the sub-time periods that are indicated in the
bitmap as having received at least one payload into a single byte array.”
Final Act. 20 (citing Kulkarni ¶¶ 57, 63, 85). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to combine the pertinent teachings of Kulkarni
with those of Bhave because Kulkarni recognizes the benefits of
compressing data to reduce storage requirement, and using the bitmaps as
taught by Kulkarni would further that goal. Final Act. 19 (citing Kulkarni
¶ 2).
Appeal 2019-005440
Application 14/449,065

5
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings with respect to Kulkarni.
Br. 13–15. More specifically, Appellant argues Kulkarni does not teach
either the “generating” limitation or the “aggregating” limitation. Br. 13.
Appellant acknowledges that Kulkarni teaches generating a bitmap, but that
“nothing in Kulkarni suggests that the bitmap indicates which sub-time
periods within the time period have received one payload of the plurality
of payloads.” Br. 13. Appellant argues that Kulkarni merely discloses that
the generated bitmap corresponds to a “given target false positive probability
for an assumed number of distinct keys.” Br. 13–14 (quoting Kulkarni
¶ 85). Appellant explains:
The fact that the keys are associated with timestamps has nothing
to do with whether a payload was received in the time period of
Kulkarni. The keys in Kulkarni only indicate what time the
bitmap was created. Id. This is much different than teaching that
the bitmap indicates which sub-time periods at least one payload
was received like in the present application. The indicators in the
bitmap in the present application are then used to identify which
sub-time periods are associated with metrics so that in the
aggregating step the time series data associated with the sub-time
periods that are indicated in the bitmap as having received at
least one payload are aggregated into a single byte array.
Kulkarni in no way teaches or suggests identifying which sub-
time periods received at least one payload and therefore would
have to try to aggregate metrics from all of the sub-time periods
in the bitmap, regardless of whether there was a payload received
during that sub-time period.
Br. 14.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument in the Answer,
providing a detailed mapping each of the argued elements in the disputed
limitations to corresponding features of Kulkarni’s system. Ans. 5–6. The
Examiner finds Kulkarni’s keys are incremental integers, i.e., time stamps,
Appeal 2019-005440
Application 14/449,065

6
teaching “sub-time periods,” as recited in claim 13 (Ans. 5, citing to
Kulkarni, par. 48). The Examiner finds Kulkarni’s additional groups of
records, which can be incrementally processed at regular time intervals and
stored, teach the recited “payload” in the disputed limitation (Ans. 5, citing
to Kulkarni, par. 57). The Examiner also finds Kulkarni’s received records
are associated with a time stamp as the primary keys, and these timestamps
teach the recited “sub-time periods.” (Ans. 5, citing to Kulkarni, par. 83).
The Examiner further finds Kulkarni’s grouping the records into a batch,
where a batch teaches a “payload,” and multiple batches teach “multiple
payloads,” as recited in claim 13 (Ans. 5, citing to Kulkarni, par. 84). The
Examiner also finds Kulkarni’s screening data structure teaches a “bitmap”
as recited in claim 13 (Ans. 6, citing to Kulkarni, par. 85). The Examiner
finds Kulkarni’s timestamps are keys used to generate a bit hash value,
further finding Kulkarni’s teaching of merging the bitmaps together teaches
“aggregating the time series data,” as recited in claim 13 (Ans. 6, citing to
Kulkarni, par. 89).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and explanation set forth in
the Answer. Kulkarni teaches a system in which “[a] stream of incoming
records from one or more sources may be temporarily stored before being
processed to generate a compressed record file. Kulkarni ¶ 47. The records
are sorted “according to values of a primary key.” Id. Kulkarni teaches that
in some instances, “different compressed blocks may include different
numbers of records” because “not every primary key value necessarily
exists.” Kulkarni ¶ 51. Kulkarni teaches that these compressed record files
may be searched as a compressed block, and the searching may be made
more efficient through the use of a screening data structure that identifies
Appeal 2019-005440
Application 14/449,065

7
whether a particular record value is present in the compressed block.
Kulkarni ¶ 71. The screening data structure “can be built as records arrive,
for example, by setting bits of a bitmap.” Kulkarni ¶ 85. Kulkarni further
teaches that record key values may be based on time stamps. Kulkarni ¶ 83.
Because the generated bitmap identifies distinct key values by setting bits,
and because key values are time-based and are indicative of the time at
which the record was created, we agree with the Examiner that generating
the bitmap which sets bits according to whether specific key values are
present in the received data teaches “wherein the bitmap indicates which
sub-time periods within the time period received at least one payload of the
plurality of payloads.” We further note that Appellant has not filed a Reply
Brief. As such, the Examiner’s additional findings and explanation set forth
the Answer stand unchallenged in this record. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
dependent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
these claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims
from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13–17, 20–24, and
27–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bhave, Kulkarni
and Lomet.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 19, 26, and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bhave, Kulkarni, Lomet,
and Anderson.
Appeal 2019-005440
Application 14/449,065

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
13–17, 20–
24, 27–31
103 Bhave, Kulkarni,
Lomet
13–17, 20–
24, 27–31

19, 26, 33 103 Bhave, Kulkarni,
Lomet, Anderson
19, 26, 33
Overall
Outcome
13–17, 19–
24, 26–31, 33

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED