Ex Parte DeStefano et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 17, 201010897568 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JASON MICHAEL DESTEFANO and THOMAS HUNT SCHABO GRABOWSKI ____________________ Appeal 2009-002118 Application 10/897,568 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-002118 Application 10/897,568 I. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal the Examiner’s second rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to computer network monitoring and more particularly to handling the log data generated by such log-producing devices and processes as network firewalls, routers, file servers, VPN servers, operating systems, software applications and the like (Spec. 1, ¶ [0002]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below: 1. A method for processing log data comprising: receiving raw log data in a log data analyzer; parsing the raw log data; summarizing the parsed log data; storing the summarized data in a database maintained by the log data analyzer; receiving a database query from a management station; generating a database report in the log data analyzer from the summarized data in response to the query received from the management station; and, sending the database report to the management station. 2 Appeal 2009-002118 Application 10/897,568 C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bansal US 2003/0120593 A1 Jun. 26, 2003 Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bansal2. II. ISSUES Has the Examiner erred in finding that Bansal teaches “parsing the raw log data” and “summarizing the parsed log data” (claim 1), as Appellants contend? III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Bansal 1. Bansal discloses transmitting raw data from collectors on target devices, aggregating highly granular data through interval- summarization, and filtering out less useful metrics (pg. 39, ¶ [0935]). 2. The data is managed in a repository that can support analysis and retrieval through the use of parsing and summarization scripts and FTP transmission of raw or summarized data (id.), wherein the data management is characterized as capturing raw or summarized data 2 The obviousness double patenting rejection of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 8). 3 Appeal 2009-002118 Application 10/897,568 collected and logged (pg. 39, ¶ [0936]) and aggregating raw data from collector logs (pg. 39, ¶ [0937]). IV. ANALYSIS As to independent claim 1, Appellants contend that “Bansal does not describe both parsing log data an[d] then summarizing the parsed log data” (App. Br. 7). In particular, though Appellants admit that Bansal discloses “parsing and summarizing scripts,” Appellants contend that “Bansal does not describe what functions or steps the ‘parsing and summarizing scripts’ mentioned in [0935] perform” (App. Br. 8). However, the Examiner finds that Bansal teaches that “by logging and aggregating data using tools such as analytic ‘point’ or element manager, it is possible to monitor and capture raw historical data” (Ans. 8), wherein “raw data can be transmitted between a collector and target devices while filtering out the less useful metric” and “[w]ithout par[s]ing the data, the raw data can not be transmitted or collected sin[c]e anytime data is input into, output or transmit in a computer system, the data must be parsed” (Ans. 8- 9). The Examiner further finds that “managing of data in a repository [in Bansal] is made possible by ‘parsing and summarizing scripts, FTP transmission of raw or summarized data using a suitable database performing tool’” (id.), and points to the Microsoft Computer Dictionary to define that “‘[p]arsing raw log data’ means nothing more than simply breaking down data blocks into manageable chunks” (id.). Thus, an issue we address on appeal is whether Bansal teaches “parsing the raw log data” and “summarizing the parsed log data” as recited in claim 1. 4 Appeal 2009-002118 Application 10/897,568 Bansal discloses transmitting raw data from collectors on target devices, aggregating highly granular data through interval-summarization, and filtering out less useful metrics (FF 1), wherein the data is collected and logged (FF 2). Therefore, we find Bansal teaches raw log data as recited in claim 1. In Bansal, the data is managed in a repository that can support analysis and retrieval through the use of parsing and summarization scripts and FTP transmission of raw or summarized data (FF 2). We find Bansal’s parsing and summarization scripts provide parsing of the data, wherein the resulting data is summarized to provide summarized data for FTP transmission. In particular, to obtain summarized data from the parsing and summarization scripts, the data must be parsed and the parsed result is then summarized. That is, a parsing and summarization script must provide a parsing of data and, to provide summarized data for FTP transmission, the resulting parsed data must be summarized. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s broad but reasonable reading of the claimed “parsing the raw log data” and “summarizing the parsed log data” (claim 1) on the application of Bansal’s parsing and summarization scripts. (See Ans. 8-9). Thus, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 and claims 2-8 falling therewith under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). V. CONCLUSIONS Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims 1-8 are anticipated by the teachings of Bansal. 5 Appeal 2009-002118 Application 10/897,568 VI. DECISIONS The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED peb FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation