Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10875942 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte XIAOPING CHEN, ANDREW JASON LAVERY
and HOWARD MILTON MCKINNEY
____________

Appeal 2010-008074
Application 10/875,942
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008074
Application 10/875,942

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12-14 and 16-27.
1
We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The Appellants’ disclosed invention is related to a method and
apparatus for analyzing events and for visualizing cause and effect
correlation information among multiple events at runtime in a networked
system. Spec. 1.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed
limitation in italics):
1. A method for graphically representing events at runtime
in an event management system, the method comprising the
computer implemented steps of:
receiving a plurality of events including a first event
defining a state of a networked device and a second event
defining a state of another networked device;
storing the plurality of events in an event database;
responsive to receiving the first event and the second
event, (1) identifying an action to take by interrogating, by a
correlation engine, a correlation rules database, and (2)
identifying an event relation between the first event, the second
event and a projected event, wherein the step of identifying the
event relation includes (i) interrogating, by the correlation
engine using the first event and the second event, an event
relation database having a plurality of records each defining at
least one event, and (ii) receiving, by the correlation engine, a
return data set including an identification of the event relation
between the first event, the second event and the projected
event;

1
Claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 15 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-008074
Application 10/875,942

3
responsive to receiving the return data set, identifying
another event relation between the projected event and another
projected event, wherein the step of identifying the another
event relation between the projected event and the another
projected event includes (i) interrogating, by the correlation
engine, the event relation database using the projected event
received in the return data set, and (ii) receiving, by the
correlation engine, a second return data set including the
another projected event;
retrieving, from the event database, property data
associated with the first event, the second event, and the
projected event;
sending, by the correlation engine to an event console,
the property data, the return data set and the second return data
set; and
generating a runtime visualization output by the event
console that includes a graphical representation of the first
event, the second event, the projected event, the another
projected event, the property data, and the event relation,
wherein the step of generating the runtime visualization output
includes graphically outputting a graph having a first node
representative of the first event, a second node representative of
the second event, a third node representative of the projected
event, and a fourth node representation of the another projected
event.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16-19, 21, 24 and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zager (U.S. 6,393,386 B1).
2

Claims 6, 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zager and Feibush (U.S. 2002/0158918 A1).

2
In the Final Office Action (“FOA”), claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16-19, 21, 24
and 27 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zager
and Feibush.
Appeal 2010-008074
Application 10/875,942

4
Claims 22 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zager and Hellerstein (U.S. 2002/0073195 A1).
3

Claims 23 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zager and the admitted prior art.
4

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Zager teaches or suggests
“retrieving, from the event database, property data associated with the first
event, the second event, and the projected event,” as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 16?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the Appellants’
arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner’s
Answer. As an initial matter, we agree with the Appellants’ observation that
the Examiner’s Answer introduces a new ground of rejection. Reply Br. 2.
Our review of the record indicates that the Appellants did not file a petition
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181(a) within two months from the mailing of the
Examiner’s Answer requesting that a ground of rejection set forth in the
Answer be designated as a new ground of rejection:
If appellant believes that an examiner’s answer contains a new
ground of rejection not identified as such, appellant may file a
petition under 37 CFR 1.181(a) within two months from the
mailing of the examiner’s answer requesting that a ground of
rejection set forth in the answer be designated as a new ground

3
In the FOA, claims 22 and 25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zager, Feibush, and Hellerstein.
4
In the FOA, claims 23 and 26 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zager, Feibush, and the admitted prior art.
Appeal 2010-008074
Application 10/875,942

5
of rejection. Any such petition must set forth a detailed
explanation as to why the ground of rejection set forth in the
answer constitutes a new ground of rejection. Any allegation
that an examiner’s answer contains a new ground of rejection
not identified as such is waived if not timely raised (i.e., by
filing the petition within two months of the answer) by way of a
petition under 37 CFR 1.181(a).
MPEP § 1207.03(IV)(emphasis added). Therefore, Appellants have waived
the allegation that the Examiner’s Answer contains a new ground of
rejection because the Appellants did not file a petition under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.181(a) within two months from the mailing of the Examiner’s
Answer. However, we agree with the Appellants’ conclusions regarding the
rejections presented in the Answer and highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
The Appellants argue that: 1) Zager does not teach or suggest
retrieving property data from an event database; and 2) the Examiner does
not provide a citation to Zager to support a finding that Zager teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Reply Br. 3 (citing Ans. 5-6). We agree
with the Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner does not provide a sufficient
factual basis to demonstrate that Zager teaches or suggests the disputed
claim limitation. At best the Examiner directs attention to Zager’s figures
25-27 and column 31, lines 6-11 and asserts: 1) “event property data ‘H/7’
indicates that a first event affects hub/router 7, event property data ‘11/C’
indicates that the associated event affects computer 11”; and 2) “the property
data is acquired from the Event Model, which is equivalent to an event
database.” Ans. 16. However, at column 31, lines 6-11, Zager teaches: 1)
dynamic agents (i.e., programs to perform specified tasks, see col. 13, ll. 29-
30; col. 20, l. 55- col. 21, l. 9) collect information from the resources such as
Appeal 2010-008074
Application 10/875,942

6
hub 7, computer 11, etc.; and 2) managed objects (i.e., resources or
components such as hub 7, computer 11) report whether they have received
a state changing event. Moreover, and contrary to the Examiner’s findings,
Zager teaches that the knowledge base for the model is the external system
itself (i.e., resources, components, etc.,) and not a separate database or the
model itself. Col. 19, ll. 29-39.
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by the
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of the Appellants’ other arguments.
Therefore, for at least this reason explained above, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16-19, 21, 24 and 27 as
unpatentable over Zager. Since claims 6, 13, 20, 22, 23, 25 and 26 depend
from independent claims 1, 9 and 16, for the same reason we cannot sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of: 1) claims 6, 13 and 20 as unpatentable over
Zager and Feibush; 2) claims 22 and 25 as unpatentable over Zager and
Hellerstein; and 3) claims 23 and 26 as unpatentable over Zager and the
admitted prior art.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12-14 and 16-27
over the applied prior art.
REVERSED

ELD