Ex Parte Alcorn et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 9, 201612847589 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/847,589 07/30/2010 John W. Alcorn AUS920100166US1 4220 87220 7590 06/09/2016 Walder Intellectual Property Law (END) C/O Walder Intellectual Property Law, P.C. 17304 Preston Road Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75252 EXAMINER GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOHN W. ALCORN and JOACHIM H. FRANK ____________________ Appeal 2013-0097951 Application 12/847,5892 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 10, 2013) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 31, 2013), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 5, 2013) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Nov. 21, 2012). 2 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2013-009795 Application 12/847,589 2 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to an improved data processing apparatus and method and more specifically to mechanisms for providing self-extending monitoring models that learn based on the arrival of new data.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method, in a computing system, for monitoring a process of a data processing system, comprising: [(a)] receiving, in the computing system, a notification of an event comprising information regarding the event and a process running in the data processing system that generated the event; [(b)] determining, by the computing system, whether one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) have been defined for an element corresponding to the process, in a model of the data processing system; [(c)] in response to one or more KPIs not having been defined for the element in the model corresponding to the process, generating, by the computing system, new KPI definitions for the element in the model corresponding to the process based on default KPIs specified in the computing system, wherein the new KPI definitions constitute an extension of the model of the data processing system to thereby generate an extended model of the data processing system; and [(d)] monitoring an operation of the data processing system based on the extended model of the data processing system. REJECTION Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gupta (US 2008/0294471 A1, pub. Nov. 27, 2008) and Netz (US 2006/0010164 A1, pub. Jan. 12, 2006). Appeal 2013-009795 Application 12/847,589 3 ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2–7 We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Gupta, on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose limitation (b), as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6–13. The Examiner relies on Gupta at paragraph 29 for the argued limitation. Final Act. 6. Gupta is directed to a method and apparatus for monitoring business performance that involves tracking a key performance indicator (“KPI”) over time or location, and presenting the results in a graph. Gupta ¶ 13. As shown in Figure 3 of Gupta, business management system 300 includes event tracking software module 310, KPI tracking module 320, display software module 330, and report/recommendation software module 340. Id. ¶ 21. Figure 3 shows examples of event tracking software modules 311–318 that may be used to track different types of events; information about events from other software modules is received at event tracking software module 310, and the event tracking software module forwards the information for display to a user. Id. ¶¶ 22, 27. Likewise, each of KPI tracking software modules 321–326 tracks a particular KPI. Id. ¶¶ 28–32, Fig. 3. For example, sales tracking software module 321 monitors the sales made through the business’s web site to provide a business information related to a number of its sales or revenue from sales, and inventory tracking software module 322 provides information regarding the number of products the business has available. Id. ¶ 29. Information about the various KPIs is gathered at KPI tracking module 320 and then forwarded for display to a user. Id. ¶ 34. Appeal 2013-009795 Application 12/847,589 4 The Examiner finds that allowing a business to track KPIs via KPI tracking software modules, as disclosed at paragraph 29 of Gupta, discloses limitation (b). Final Act. 6. The Examiner reasons that “KPIs have to be defined . . . or they could not be displayed in the graph.” Ans. 6. However, limitation (b) does not recite that a KPI is defined. Rather, limitation (b) recites “determining . . . whether one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) have been defined for an element corresponding to the process [that generated the event].” Gupta discloses that KPI tracking software modules each tracks a defined KPI (e.g., sales, inventory, emails, web analytics, page rank) (see Gupta ¶¶ 28–32), and that the KPIs and events are tracked separately. There is nothing in the portion of Gupta relied on by the Examiner that discloses or suggests that KPIs are defined for an element corresponding to the process that generated the event, let alone “determining . . . whether one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) have been defined for an element corresponding to the process [that generated the event],” as recited by claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2–7. Independent claims 8 and 15, and dependent claims 9–14 and 16–21 Independent claims 8 and 15 include language substantially similar to the language of claim 1 and stand rejected based on the same rationale applied in rejecting claim 1. Final Act. 11. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 8 and Appeal 2013-009795 Application 12/847,589 5 15, and claims 9–14 and 16–21, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation