Ex Parte DeStefano et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2011

10992230 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JASON MICHAEL DESTEFANO
and THOMAS H.S. GRABOWSKI
____________

Appeal 2009-009997
Application 10/992,230
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAY P. LUCAS, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

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 2009-009997
Application 10/992,230

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention automatically parses and summarizes log data
before inserting it into a database which significantly reduces the volume of
stored data. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative with key
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A data processing system comprising:
a local area network;
a log-producing device connected to the local area network;
and,
a log data analyzer connected to the local area network which
receives raw log data from the log-producing device over the local
area network, parses the raw log data, summarizes the parsed log
data, inserts the summarized log data into a database, and generates
reports from the summarized log data in response to database queries.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Frailong US 6,496,858 B1 Dec. 17, 2002
Proctor US 6,530,024 B1 Mar. 4, 2003
Mahalingaiah US 6,754,214 B1 June 22, 2004
(filed July 19, 1999)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 13-15, 17, 19-21, 26-28,
30, 31, 33-35, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Frailong. Ans. 3-5.2

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 13,
2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 9, 2009; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed March 9, 2009.
Appeal 2009-009997
Application 10/992,230

3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5, 9-12, 16, 18, 22-25, 29, 32, and
36-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frailong and
Proctor. Ans. 6-9.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 13-15, 17, 19-21, 26-28,
30, 31, 33-35, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mahalingaiah and Frailong. Ans. 9-13.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5, 9-12, 16, 18, 22-25, 29, 32, and
36-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mahalingaiah,
Frailong, and Proctor. Ans. 13-16.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Frailong
discloses a data processing device with every recited feature including (1) a
“log-producing device” which the Examiner equates to Frailong’s system
logging facility, and (2) a “log data analyzer” which is said to correspond to
Frailong’s diagnostic logging agent associated with the system logging
facility. Ans. 3-4. According to the Examiner, this functionality in Frailong
(1) parses and summarizes raw log data received from the log-producing
device, and (2) inserts the summarized log data into a database as claimed.
Id.
Appellants argue that Frailong does not summarize parsed log data, let
alone insert summarized log data into a database as claimed, but rather
Frailong stores raw log data in a diagnostic log file. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br.
2-3. The issue before us, then, is as follows:

Appeal 2009-009997
Application 10/992,230

4
ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Frailong (1) summarizes parsed log data, and (2) inserts this
summarized data into a database?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Frailong’s system initializes, configures, and upgrades a network
interface between a client-computer network and an external network. To
this end, the system includes a gateway interface device 208 with system
software 400 including a runtime layer 406 which, via a configuration
manager 506, communicates with various services 512. The services report
errors and diagnostic information to system logging facility 716 that serves
as a repository for diagnostic message. Frailong, col. 2, ll. 30-33; col. 3, ll.
11-12; col. 4, l. 66 – col. 5, l. 23; col. 7, l. 33 – col. 8, l. 39; col. 10, l. 60 –
col. 12, l. 9; Figs. 2, 4, 5, 7.
2. A set of diagnostic agents 718 are logically coupled to Frailong’s
system logging facility 716. Each diagnostic agent is programmed to
respond to particular problems or error message formats. As the system
logging facility 716 receives messages from different services 714, the
system logging facility routes (1) particular messages to specified
destinations as the messages demand, and (2) unformatted messages to
appropriate diagnostic agents 718. The diagnostic agents examine the
messages as they are received, and determine whether the system is
performing properly. Frailong, col. 11, ll. 12-25; Fig. 7. The software
components of Frailong’s gateway interface system is shown in Figure 7
reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-009997
Application 10/992,230

5

Software components of Frailong’s gateway interface system in Figure 7
3. Frailong’s system logging facility writes its operations to a
diagnostic log file 717 through a diagnostic logging agent. This agent
collects all messages into the diagnostic log file 717 which is used when the
system fails. In this case, technical support personnel can read the raw log
data from the diagnostic log file 717 to determine the problem. Frailong,
col. 11, ll. 26-33; Fig. 7.

Appeal 2009-009997
Application 10/992,230

6
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, inserting parsed summarized log data into a database. In the rejection,
the Examiner relies principally on the functionality of Frailong’s system
logging facility and its associated diagnostic logging agent for these
functions. Ans. 3-4.
We see no error in these findings, for nothing in claim 1 precludes the
different services’ messages received by Frailong’s system logging facility
as constituting “raw log data,” particularly since these messages originate
from different services and have different formats. See FF 2-3. Nor does
claim 1 preclude the functionality of the system logging facility’s associated
diagnostic logging agent which, by collecting these messages, effectively
parses and summarizes them as a unified collection that is stored in a
database, namely the diagnostic log file. See FF 3.
Although Frailong characterizes this collection as readable “raw log
data,” that nomenclature does not obviate the fact that the system logging
facility’s diagnostic logging agent’s receipt and collection of different
services’ messages effectively parses and summarizes this data as a unified
collection of “raw log data” from multiple, disparate sources. In that sense,
this unified message collection in Frailong is a “summary” for it “presents
the substance or general idea in brief form” (i.e., a unified collection) in
accordance with the plain meaning of the term “summarize.”3 Appellants’

3 See Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English 1341 (3d
college ed. 1988) (defining “summarize” “to make a summary of; state
Appeal 2009-009997
Application 10/992,230

7
arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3) are simply not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Although the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments cites
Frailong as allegedly disclosing a “detection policy” that identifies a
“security occurrence” and a corresponding affected group of users (Ans. 17-
18), this particular subject matter and corresponding citations actually
pertain to the cited secondary reference to Proctor—not Frailong—and is
therefore inapposite to the Examiner’s anticipation rejection based solely on
Frailong. Compare Ans. 3-4 with Ans. 6-7. Although Appellants failed to
note this inconsistency in the Reply Brief,4 we nonetheless treat the
Examiner’s error as harmless for it does not affect our assessment of the
merits of the Examiner’s position regarding anticipation as articulated in the
rejection (Ans. 3-4)—a position that we find reasonable as noted above.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 6-8, 13-15, 17, 19-21, 26-28, 30, 31,
33-35, and 40 not separately argued with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We will also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims
1-40. Ans. 6-16. Appellants have not particularly pointed out errors in the
Examiner’s reasoning to overcome the Examiner’s conclusion of

briefly,” and “that presents the substance or general idea in brief form;
summarizing; concise; condensed”).
4 See Reply Br. 2 (acknowledging the Examiner’s argument regarding a
grouping of users associated with a potential security breach in Frailong)
(emphasis added).

Appeal 2009-009997
Application 10/992,230

8
obviousness for these claims, but merely reiterate similar arguments made in
connection with claim 1. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 3-4. We are not
persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons previously
discussed. The rejections are therefore sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 13-15,
17, 19-21, 26-28, 30, 31, 33-35, and 40 under § 102, and (2) claims 1-40
under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-40 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

llw

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (SV)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022