Ex Parte ErrorDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 6, 201110356685 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Jul. 6, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte BRETT ERROR ____________ Appeal 2009-011478 Application 10/356,685 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011478 Application 10/356,685 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12-18, 20-28, 30-32, 36, 38, 39, 41-44, 46-52, 54-56, 60, 62-65, and 67-83. (App. Br. 2.) Claims 3-4, 7-11, 19, 29, 33-35, 37, 40, 45, 53, 57-59, 61, and 66 have been canceled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Disclosed Invention The disclosed invention includes “techniques for collecting [website] traffic data from multiple sources and aggregating the collected data.” (Spec. ¶ [0002].) The invention includes data collection nodes that receive client requests including data representing website usage from client machines, store the client requests locally, and associate the client requests with time stamps. (Spec. ¶¶ [0025], [0030], and [0035].) The invention also includes a data collection node selector that dynamically selects a data collection node to receive each client request. (Spec. ¶ [0027].) The invention also includes a master processing center that receives data from the data collection nodes, sorts and aggregates the data according to the time stamps, and generates a report from the data representing website usage. (Spec. ¶¶ [0036] and [0045].) Exemplary claim 1 follows: 1. A distributed data collection system for collecting website usage data, comprising: a plurality of data collection nodes, each comprising a clock, each data collection node for: Appeal 2009-011478 Application 10/356,685 3 receiving, via a network connection, client requests for elements, each client request including data from at least one client machine, the data representing website usage; locally storing the received data; associating each received client request with a time stamp; and responsive to occurrence of a predefined trigger event, attempting to transmit the locally stored data; wherein the clocks are synchronized with one another; a data collection node selector, for dynamically selecting, responsive to current conditions, a data collection node to receive each client request and to collect the data included in the client request; and a master processing center, for: receiving collected data from at least a subset of the data collection nodes; sorting and aggregating the received data according to the time stamps to generate a set of events describing website usage; and performing statistical analysis on the set of events to generate a report comprising website usage statistics; wherein: responsive to failure of an attempted transmission, the data collection node retains the locally stored data and the master processing center flags the corresponding aggregated received data as incomplete. Appeal 2009-011478 Application 10/356,685 4 The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 12-13, 17-30, 36, 38-39, 43-54, 60, 64-71, 73-75, 77-79, and 81-83 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Farrell (U.S. Patent 6,751,663), Cochran (U.S. Patent 6,701,324), Lu (U.S. Patent 7,069,325), Schweitzer (U.S. Patent 7,065,571), and Glommen (U.S. Patent 6,766,370). The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 31, 32, 55, 56, 72, 76, and 80 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Farrell, Cochran, Lu, Schweitzer, Glommen, and Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art. The Examiner rejected claims 16, 42, and 63 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Farrell, Cochran, and Datta (U.S. Patent 7,024,472). ISSUE Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner establish that Lu renders obvious “a plurality of data collection nodes, each comprising a clock … wherein the clocks are synchronized with one another,” as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 27 and 51? FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Lu 1. Lu discloses “techniques for synchronizing a plurality of servers, receiving a client request from the client to access a server of the plurality of servers, generating a transmit identifier associated with the client request, the transmit identifier identifying an event upon the occurrence of which the Appeal 2009-011478 Application 10/356,685 5 plurality of synchronized servers each transmit a response to the client, forwarding the client request and the transmit identifier to each of the plurality of synchronized serves.” (Abstract.) 2. With these techniques, multiple “servers are able to send requested content responses to the client starting at the same starting time.” (4:13-15.) PRINCIPLES OF LAW The Examiner bears an initial burden of factually supporting an articulated rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Under § 103, “‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted). ANALYSIS Appellant asserts that the prior art does not “suggest data collection nodes having clocks that are synchronized with one another.” (App. Br. 16.) The Examiner reasons that Lu teaches synchronizing a clock mechanism for a plurality of servers. (Ans. 5.) But independent claims 1, 27, and 51 require more; they require a plurality of data collection nodes for receiving client requests containing data representing website usage wherein the data collection nodes have clocks that are synchronized with one another. Claims 2, 5-6, 12-18, 20-26, 28, 30-32, 36, 38-39, 41-44, 46-50, 52, 54-56, 60, 62-65, 67-83 are dependent upon claims 1, 27, and 51. The Examiner fails to demonstrate that Lu’s teaching of synchronized servers teaches or suggests the claimed data collection nodes having clocks that are synchronized with one another. (See e.g., Ans.8-40.) Indeed, as explained Appeal 2009-011478 Application 10/356,685 6 by Appellant, Lu synchronizes servers so that they can respond to a client request at the same time. (Reply Br. 26-27; accord FF 2.) Thus, Lu’s servers are not synchronized for data collection, as required by claims 1, 27, and 51. (Id.) The additional teachings of Farrell, Cochran, Glommen, and Datta do not make up for the deficiencies noted above. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 27 and 51, and claims 2, 5, 6, 12-18, 20-26, 28, 30-32, 36, 38, 39, 41-44, 46-50, 52, 54-56, 60, 62-65, and 67-83 dependent therefrom. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12-18, 20-28, 30-32, 36, 38, 39, 41-44, 46-52, 54-56, 60, 62-65, and 67-83. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation