Ex Parte Collins et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2017

13620785 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2017)

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.
13/620,785 09/15/2012 Ann Eleanor Collins GB920110036US2 6588
48916 7590
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment Blvd.
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
06/21/2017 EXAMINER
KRAFT, SHIH-WEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2017 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 ANN ELEANOR COLLINS, JENNY JING HE,
ANTHONY PHILIP PAPAGEORGIOU and
ANDREW DEAN WHARMBY
Appeal 2017-001373
Application 13/620,785
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, CATHERINE SHIANG, and STEVEN M.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—7, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to event
processing. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2017-001373
Application 13/620,785
1. A method for preventing event flooding in an event processing
system, the method comprising:
responsive to receiving monitored activity data, analysing, by a
plurality of processors, the monitored activity data, to identify
an event;
responsive to identifying the event, identifying, by the plurality of
processors, a set of threshold values and determining whether
the event has met a threshold value of the set of threshold
values;
responsive to determining that the event has met the threshold
value, determining, by the plurality of processors, if the met
threshold value, is an identical threshold value met by a
previous event; and
responsive to determining that the met threshold value is an
identical threshold value met by the previous event,
disregarding, by the plurality of processors, the event.
References and Rejections1
Claims 1, 2, and 4—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Noble (US 5,944,782, issued Aug. 31, 1999) and
Korzeniowski (US 2006/0087409 Al, published Apr. 27, 2006).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Noble, Korzeniowski, and Ginter (US 2005/0015624 Al, published
Jan. 20, 2005).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited excerpts of Noble
1 The Examiner withdrew a non-statutory double patenting rejection. Ans.
2.
2
Appeal 2017-001373
Application 13/620,785
teach or suggest “responsive to determining that the event has met the
threshold value, determining, by the plurality of processors, if the met
threshold value, is an identical threshold value met by a previous event,^ as
recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 6—7; Reply
Br. 2-3.
Initially, the Examiner cites excerpts from Noble’s columns 6—8 for
teaching the italicized claim limitation. See Final Act. 10. In response to
Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner also cites excerpts from Noble’s
columns 2, 5, and 9. See Ans. 4—9. We have reviewed the cited Noble
portions, and they do not teach or suggest “responsive to determining that
the event has met the threshold value, determining, by the plurality of
processors, if the met threshold value, is an identical threshold value met by
a previous event'” (emphases added), under the Examiner’s mapping.
Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited
Noble portions teach or suggest the disputed claim limitation.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—7,
which depend from claim 1. Although the Examiner cites an additional
reference for rejecting dependent claim 3, the Examiner has not shown the
additional reference overcomes the deficiency of Noble, as discussed above
regarding the rejection of claim 1.
3
Appeal 2017-001373
Application 13/620,785
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7.
REVERSED
4