Ex Parte Friedlander et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

11227393 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT R. FRIEDLANDER
and JAMES R. KRAEMER
____________________

Appeal 2010-010599
Application 11/227,393
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and TREVOR
M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010599
Application 11/227,393

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1, 3-20, and 22-27, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented methods, systems, computer program
products and data structures for hierarchical organization of data associated
with security events. Spec., Summary of Invention.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method of organizing security data, comprising:
[1] hierarchically relating a triggering security event with
one or more additional security events based on a possible
relationship between the triggering security event and the one
or more additional security events in a computer database
environment maintained in a computer readable storage
medium and associated with a data processing system;
[2] receiving, via the data processing system, a request
specifying the triggering security event at the computer
database environment; and
[3] providing, from the computer database environment, the
one or more additional security events possibly associated with
the specified triggering security event responsive to the request.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jan. 22, 2010), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 23,
2010), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Sep. 1, 2009).
Appeal 2010-010599
Application 11/227,393

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Lawrence
Leary
US 2004/0006532 A1
US 2004/0193572 A1
Jan. 8, 2004
Sep. 30, 2004

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-20, and 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lawrence and Leary.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-20,
and 22-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lawrence and
Leary turns on whether the combination of the cited prior art teaches or
suggests “providing one or more additional security events (to a subscriber)
that may be related to a triggering security event, responsive to a request by
the subscriber,” as per claim 1 (App. Br. 5-6 (emphasis omitted)), whether
Leary’s relational databases teach away from the claimed invention,
“providing one or more second events (to a subscriber) that are
hierarchically linked to a first event and maybe related to the first event,
responsive to a request by a subscriber” as per claim 1 (App. Br. 6 (emphasis
omitted)), and “a triggering security event object at a first level of hierarchy
in a computer database environment and one or more additional security
even objects at a second level of the hierarchy (that is lower than the first
level) that are identified based on a possible relationship with the triggering
security object” as per claims 10 and 12 (App. Br. 6).

Appeal 2010-010599
Application 11/227,393

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.
The Appellants have presented the arguments that (1) the combination
of Lawrence and Leary fails to teach or suggest “providing one or more
additional security events (to a subscriber) that may be related to a triggering
security event, responsive to a request by the subscriber,” as per claim 1; (2)
Leary’s relational databases teach away from the claimed invention; (3)
“providing one or more second events (to a subscriber) that are
hierarchically linked to a first event and maybe related to the first event,
responsive to a request by a subscriber” as per claim 1; and (4) “a triggering
security event object at a first level of hierarchy in a computer database
environment and one or more additional security even objects at a second
level of the hierarchy (that is lower than the first level) that are identified
based on a possible relationship with the triggering security object” as per
claims 10 and 12. App. Br. 4-6 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner has fully
responded to these arguments. Ans. 17-22. We agree with and accordingly
adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and analysis, and reach the same legal
conclusions as in that response.
Appeal 2010-010599
Application 11/227,393

5
We further note that with respect to the Appellants’ argument that the
combination of Lawrence and Leary fails to teach or suggest “providing one
or more additional security events (to a subscriber) that may be related to a
triggering security event, responsive to a request by the subscriber” and “a
triggering security event object at a first level of hierarchy in a computer
database environment and one or more additional security even objects at a
second level of the hierarchy (that is lower than the first level) that are
identified based on a possible relationship with the triggering security
object,” these arguments merely consists of a brief characterization of the
cited prior art and an allegation that the prior art fails to describe these
limitations. While we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions,
we are also unpersuaded by these arguments because these arguments fail
provide evidence or rationale that distinguishes the claimed invention from
the cited prior art.
Also, the Appellants’ arguments that Leary’s relational databases
teach away from the claimed invention and “providing one or more second
events (to a subscriber) that are hierarchically linked to a first event and
maybe related to the first event, responsive to a request by a subscriber” (Br.
6) do not include anything more rationale than these mere allegations of
patentability which are unsupported by factual evidence and entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Rather, only attorney
argument was presented. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974); Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
Accordingly, we do not consider these statements to be arguments.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what
Appeal 2010-010599
Application 11/227,393

6
a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-20, and 22-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lawrence and Leary.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1, 3-20, and 22-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lawrence and Leary is sustained.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc