Ex Parte DeStefano et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 17, 2010

10897568 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2010)

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