Ex Parte Hind et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2012

11744608 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN R. HIND and YONGCHENG LI
____________

Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before, STEPHEN C. SIU, JUSTIN T. ARBES and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

2

SUMMARY

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S. C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention concerns an integrated logging system with a client-
side logging component and a server-side logging component. Messages including
logged client-side activity information are received from the client-side logging
component by the server-side logging component, and the logged activity
information is integrated into the server side log(s) of a server-side logging system.
(Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative.
1. An integrated logging system comprising:
a server-side logging component associated with a remote server that:
transmits a marker to a client-side logging component
associated with a client-side processing device, said marker
comprising at least a start tag that identifies a start of a particular
session between a container executed on said client-side processing
device and said remote server;
receives back said marker from said client-side processing
device; and
receives client-side logged activity information from said
client-side processing device in response to data communication with
said remote server associated with said particular session between said
container and said remote server, wherein said logged client-side
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

3

activity information from said client-side processing device is
asynchronously received by said server-side logging component and
relates to the execution of a script within a client execution
environment that is controlled and operated independently of said
remote server;
a server-side logging integration component that organizes
server-side logged activity information and received client-side
logged activity information into a server-side log;
a storage system that stores said server-side log; and
an activity analysis component that conveys information from
said server-side log to an analyst for problem determination with
regard to script execution within said independently controlled and
operated client execution environment.
(App. Br. 21, Claims Appendix.)

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over US 2005/0028171(Kougiouris) in view of US2007/0244914 A1
(Kreiner) and further in view of US 2006/0015853 A1 (Babineau).
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kougiouris in view of Kreiner and further in view of Babineau
and US 6,460,076 B1 (Srinivasan).

ANALYSIS
We address the claims as grouped by Appellants in the Appeal Brief.

Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

4

Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16
In this claim group, claim 1 is illustrative. Since there is a discrepancy
between the Final Rejection mailed on January 27, 2010 and the Examiner’s
Answer, we begin with the Final Rejection mailed on January 27, 2010.1 In the
Final Rejection mailed on January 27, 2010 the Examiner found that Kougiouris
teaches the client and server-side logging components, storage system and activity
analysis component recited in claim 1. (Final Rej. 2-4). The Examiner found that
Kreiner teaches logging and problem determination relating to the execution of the
script. (Id. at 5).
At issue in this Appeal are the Examiner’s findings concerning the
remaining claim limitations. In the Final Rejection mailed on January 27, 2010,
the Examiner found that Babineau teaches the claimed limitations of a server-side
logging component associated with a remote server that:
transmits a marker to a client-side logging component
associates with a client side processing device, said
marker comprising at least a start tag that identifies the
start of a particular session between a container executed
on a client-side processing device said remote server;
[and]

receives back said marker from said client-side
processing device;

(Id. at 5-6).
The Examiner specifically cited to paragraphs [0040], [0063], [0065] and
[0066] of Babineau. The Examiner stated that Babineau discloses “Paragraph [sic]

1  Throughout we refer to the Final Rejection mailed on January 27, 2010, the
Appeal Brief filed on June 25, 2010, the Examiner’s Answer mailed on October
13, 2010, and Appellants’ Reply Brief filed on December 13, 2010.
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

5

teaches that a marker can be a ‘service entry point’ and Paragraph 40 goes on to
state that ‘each entry point may be specific to a user.’”2 (Id. at 6). On this basis
the Examiner found that the marker in Babineau comprises a start tag that
identifies the start of a debugging/logging session. (Id.). Citing paragraphs [0065]
and [0066] and the steps illustrated in Figure 8, the Examiner found that Babineau
teaches returning to the server the necessary information including the process
identifier and IP address of the target system. (Id.).
In their Appeal Brief, Appellants argued that in Babineau the service entry
point information and user ID information analogous to the recited “marker” are
generated at the client-side device deployed with an application. (App. Br. 14).
Appellants argued that Babineau is in direct contrast with claim 1 which recites
that the server-side logging component transmits a marker to the client-side
logging component. (Id.). Appellants further argued that nothing in the user ID
information of Babineau relates to when a session is started, in contrast to the
marker recited in claim 1 which identifies the start of the session between a client
container and the server. (Id.).
The Examiner’s Answer maintains the same final rejection based on the
combination of Kougiouris, Kreiner and Babineau, but re-states the Examiner’s
analysis concerning Babineau. The Examiner’s Answer notes that in Kougiouris a
logging event, which acts as a marker indicating the start of the logging session, is
created by the client rather than the server. (Ans. 7). Citing paragraph [0041], the
Examiner finds that Babineau teaches that an event, i.e., a “marker,” is generated
from the server and sent to the client. (Id.).

2 The Examiner’s Final Rejection appears to have omitted a reference to
paragraphs [0038] and [0039].
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

6

In their Reply Brief, Appellants assert that the way the rejection of claim 1
as stated in the Examiner’s Answer constitutes a new ground of rejection that
merits reopening prosecution. (Reply Br. 4). Where the Appellant believes that an
Examiner’s Answer contains a new ground of rejection not identified as such, the
Appellant may file a petition within two months of the mailing date of the
Examiner’s Answer requesting that a ground of rejection set forth in the Answer be
designated a new ground of rejection or the argument is waived. There is no
record of Appellants having filed such a petition on this case. Since no new
ground of rejection has been designated, prosecution may not be re-opened. See
MPEP § 1207.03(IV); 37 C.F.R. § 41.39.
Appellants now argue that it would not have been obvious to modify
Kougiouris in view of Babineau because doing so would have been directly
opposite the principles of operation of Kougiouris, which the Examiner states
teaches that the event is created by the client while in Babineau the Examiner
states the event is generated from the server. (Reply Br. 5).
Babineau and Kougiouris concern similar technology. Kougiouris teaches a
system and method enabling multiple processes to efficiently log events.
(Abstract). Babineau teaches a method and apparatus for on-demand debugging,
tracing, and logging of applications. In Babineau, after a user selects one or more
units of execution of interest, a marker is assigned to each target object.
(Abstract). Since Babineau discloses that an application 410 may be one that
executes on server 412 or a client application that executes on client 402,
(¶[0045]), we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Kougiouris and
Babineau.
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

7

As discussed above, the Examiner noted that in paragraph [0041] Babineau
teaches that a web server processes the user’s request and executes the application
on the target system, which is the user’s data processing system. (See Ans. 7). If a
marked target is encountered during execution, a service entry is triggered and an
event is sent to the registered event handler on the target system. (¶[0041]). The
service entry is a marker which a server recognizes when a selected object is
invoked. (¶[0038]). Babineau specifically teaches that that if one of the entry
points 408 assigned by a user is encountered in the process 414, server 412 sends
an event notification to the event handler 416 on client 402, which then gathers the
appropriate information. (¶¶[0045, 0046]). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Babineau teaches a server sending an event indicating the start of a logging session
between the client and the server (Ans. 14) and we sustain the rejection of claims
1, 2, 8, 9, and 16.
We further note that in the Final Rejection mailed on January 27, 2010, the
Examiner referenced Fig. 8 and the actions taken in step 808 after event detection
(Final Rej. 6). Figure 8 of Babineau shows that the input to step 808 comes from
step 806 which reads “event handler detect an event from server.” Thus, our
conclusion is consistent with the findings in the Examiner’s original final rejection.
Claims 3, 10 and 17
Claim 3 is illustrative of the claims in this group. Appellants do not dispute
that Kougiouris teaches that the client-side entity generates a timestamp, but
contend that the timestamp of Kougiouris cannot be part of the marker that is
transmitted from the server-side logging component to the client-side logging
component as recited in claim 3. (App. Br. 16). Appellants maintain this
argument in their Reply Brief. (Reply Br. 6). As discussed above, we agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

8

have combined the teachings of Kougiouris and Babineau. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to include a timestamp in the marker
as recited in claim 3. (Ans. 16). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 10,
and 17.

Claims 4, 11, and 18
Claim 4 is illustrative of the claims in this group. Claim 4 recites that the
received client-side logged activity information is stored in the server-side log by
computing an offset of each activity based upon the timestamp. The claim does
not define an “offset.” The Specification, however, explains the claimed offset,
noting that the time on a client system may not be the same as the timestamp
recorded by the server-side logging system and that time synchronization may be
accomplished by adding an offset for each log activity to the timestamp time,
either at the client-side or server-side. (¶[0064]). The Specification states that, for
example, the offset may be determined based upon the time between receipt of the
marker or some other reasonable measure and the time each log entry is created.
(Id.).
In rejecting this group of claims, the Examiner cites paragraph [0086] of
Kougiouris, which discloses that the server-side logging component may use the
event timestamp information to properly order events in the log and account for
variables such as network latencies involved in sending events from client-side
logging components to server-side logging components. (Ans. 9, 16-17). The
cited passage from Kougiouris contradicts Appellants argument that “[n]one of the
references teach or suggest anything about network latency.” (App. Br. 18).
Accounting for latencies involved in sending events from the client-side logging
components to the server-side logging components, as disclosed in Kougiouris, is
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

9

relevant to the claimed offset. We agree with the Examiner that based on the
teachings of Kougiouris, using a time offset approach is an obvious expedient to
account for such latencies and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
reason to implement the feature. (Ans. 17). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 4, 11, and 18.
Claims 5, 12 and 19
Claim 5 is representative of the claims in this group. Appellants argue that
the Examiner’s reasoning in the Examiner’s Answer departs from the reasoning
articulated in the Final Rejection. (Reply Br. 6-7). As previously noted,
Appellants did not timely file a petition seeking to designate the Examiner’s
Answer as containing a new ground of rejection, therefore prosecution is not
reopened.
Claim 5 recites the additional limitation on claim 2 that the server-side
logging component communicates the start tag to one or more additional related
servers for distribution from each server to a corresponding one client-side
processing device. In the Final Rejection mail on January 27, 2010, the Examiner
noted that Kougiouris in view of Kreiner discloses a “related server” used by the
server-side logging component to “propagate the event log information.” (Final
Rej. 9). Agreeing that the cited art does not explicitly disclose using the related
server for distributing the start tag, the Examiner concluded it would be obvious to
do so in order to prevent overloading, since load-balancing is known in the art.
(Id.). Appellants argued that these claims do not recite load-balancing and that in a
multi-server environment it is helpful to have each server-side log identify the
same information consistently in order to help troubleshoot a problem. (App. Br.
18).
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

10

The Examiner’s Answer states that backing up data for purposes of failover
and load-balancing were well known in the art at the time of the invention, and it
would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to propagate the start tag or any related
session data to an additional server for further distribution to the client to prevent
overloading in a given server and maintain a session in the event of failure. (Ans.
10). In response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner
invites consideration of US 6,539,494 B1 (Abramson), which teaches backing up
session data on another server to failover to that server, in support of the contention
that well-known features such as a failover and load-balancing make it obvious to
propagate a start tag to an additional server for further distribution to the client
device. (Ans. 18). Appellants respond that the subject claims specifically recite
that the server-side logging components communicate the start tag to additional
servers for distribution to a client-side device; in contrast in Kougiouris, the
“event” is a client-side event and there is no need or desirability to back-up the
event multiple times on one client because doing so provides no failover
protection. (Reply Br. 7).
As Appellants note, claim 5 actually recites copying information to one or
more additional servers among many. (Reply Br. 6). Appellants argue that the
purpose of this copying is to have each server-side log identify the same
information consistently in order to help troubleshoot a problem and one way to do
so is to send an identical start tag to a client from every server. (Id.). However,
claim 5 is not limited to this purpose. Giving claim 5 its broadest reasonable
interpretation, the issue is whether it would have been obvious to communicate the
start tag to one or more additional servers for distribution from each server to a
corresponding one client side processing device, regardless of the purpose. The
Examiner’s Final Rejection mailed on January 27, 2010 mentioned the prevention
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

11

of overloading by load balancing as one reason to use multiple servers as taught by
Kuorgiouris in view of Kreiner. The Examiner’s mention of “failover” in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 10) as another reason for using multiple servers does not
change the issue. Claim 5 is not limited to any particular purpose for
communicating the start tag to multiple servers.
Appellants’ argument that the event is a client-side event and there is no
need to back-up the event multiple times on one client is based on the assumption
that Babineau, which supplies the teaching that the event is a server-side event,
cannot be combined with Kougiouris. We previously rejected Appellants’ position
because Babineau teaches that the application 410 may be one that executes on
server 412 or a client application that executes on client 402, (¶[0045]). Thus,
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5
and we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19.
Claims 6, 13 and 20
Claim 6 is representative of the claims in this group. Claim 6 recites the
additional limitation on claim 2 that the server-side logging component transmits a
different marker to the client-side logging component for each client-side logging
instance executing in the client execution environment of a corresponding
processing device. Citing paragraphs 10 and 94 of Kougiouris, the Examiner finds
that since a given client processing device can have multiple processes running and
each process can be associated with a client-side logging component instance, each
instance must receive an event (marker) indicating the start of a logging session.
(Ans. 10-11). Appellants argue that the Examiner relies on Babineau for
disclosing an element analogous to the recited marker and that the element in
Kougiouris could not be considered analogous to a marker as recited in claim 1
because such markers include at least a start tag that identifies a start of a particular
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

12

session between a container executed on the client side processing device and the
remote server. (App. Br. 19).
As we previously noted in our discussion of claim 1, Kougiouris teaches a
system and method enabling multiple processes to efficiently log events .
(Abstract). Babineau discloses that an application 410 may be one that executes on
server 412 or a client application that executes on client 402, (¶[0045]). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Babineau teaches a server sending an event indicating
the start of a logging session between the client and the server. (Ans. 14). We
further agree with the Examiner that the “event” taught in paragraph 74 of
Kougiouris and the timestamp in paragraph 76 of Kougiouris constitute markers,
for the reasons stated by the Examiner. (Ans. 7). Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 6, 13, and 20.

Claims 7, 14 and 21
With respect to claims 7, 14, and 21, Appellants argue only that the
additional reference Srinivasan does not teach the features of claim 1 that
Appellants contend are missing from the primary combination of references. Since
we have already determined that the features of claim 1 are taught or suggested by
the primary combination of references and because Appellants have offered no
other arguments for the patentability of claims 7, 14 and 21, we sustain the
rejection of claims 7, 14, and 21.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kougiouris in view of Kreiner and further in view of
Babineau is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-006212
Application 11/744,608

13

The rejection of claims 7, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kougiouris in view of Kreiner and further in view of Babineau
and Srinivasan 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