Ex Parte Klicnik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 2, 2016

12327988 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/327,988 12/04/2008
37945 7590 09/07/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vladimir Klicnik
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CA920080063US 1 6149
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLADIMIR KLICNIK, GRACE HAI YAN LO,
CURTIS REED MILES, and WILLIAM GERALD
O'FARRELL
Appeal2014-008284
Application 12/327,988
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and JOHN D.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-16, and 18-20. Final Act. 2. Claims 3, 10,
and 17 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008284
Application 12/327,988
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to event management. Abstract. Claim 1,
reproduced below with added numbering, 2 is exemplary of the matter on
appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method for a generic data model for
event monitoring integration, the computer-implemented method
compnsmg:
(1) generating, by a computer, monitor application descriptor
data for an identified candidate by decomposing the identified
candidate into a set of elements that include event sources and
associated event descriptors that describe the events that an event
source of event sources can emit using a monitor application descriptor
generator, wherein the identified candidate is an application;
(2) identifying, by the computer, a monitor model associated
with the identified candidate to form an identified target monitor model
specification template;
(3) responsive to identifying the target monitor model
specification template, the computer providing the monitor application
descriptor data and the target monitor model specification template to
a monitor model generator;
( 4) identifying application elements, derived from the monitor
application descriptor data and generated by the computer in the
monitor application descriptor generator using source statements of the
application, of the identified candidate to be monitored to form
identified elements, wherein the identified elements are selected by a
user from a user interface, configured to browse a module of the
application, by first selecting an event source for the application and
then selecting one or more emitted events associated with the event
source;
( 5) determining, by the computer, if the target monitor model
specification template is associated with at least one identified
element;
2 Appellants and the Examiner frequently refer to the disputed limitations as
Features (1 }-(9) and, for consistency, we also employ this designation. App.
Br 17-18; Ans. 2-21.
2
Appeal2014-008284
Application 12/327,988
( 6) responsive to a determination that the target monitor model
specification template is associated with the at least one identified
element, the computer selecting the target monitor model specification
template;
(7) determining, by the computer, if an event is associated with
the at least one identified element;
(8) responsive to a determination that the event is associated with
the at least one identified element, the computer presenting a choice for
the at least one identified event for selecting by a user; and
(9) generating, by the computer, the identified monitor model for
the elements identified and chosen to create the identified monitor
model output for monitoring the identified candidate by the monitor
model generator using the target monitor model specification template.
App. Br. 35-36 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 2007/0174844 Al);
published July 26, 2007) ("Adams") in view of Ahluwalia et al. ("Model-
Based Run-Time Monitoring of End-to-End Deadlines," EMSOFT'05,
September 19-22, 2005), and Mi et al. (US 2003/0018643 Al; published
Jan. 23, 2003) ("Mi"). Final Act. 8-35.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Adam, Ahluwalia, and Mi do not disclose or suggest
the limitations (Features) 1-9 of claim 1 and one of ordinary skill in the art
would not combine these references as suggested by the Examiner. App. Br.
17-35; Reply Br. 8-22.
Limitation 1 (Feature 1) recites:
3
Appeal2014-008284
Application 12/327,988
( 1) generating, by a computer, monitor application descriptor
data for an identified candidate by decomposing the
identified candidate into a set of elements that include event
sources and associated event descriptors that describe the
events that an event source of event sources can emit using a
monitor application descriptor generator, wherein the
identified candidate is an application (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Adams teaches limitation (1 ). Final Act. 8-9
(citing i-fi-135, 36); Ans.10-12. Specifically, the Examiner finds:
the combination of Adams, Ahluwalia and Mi discloses, by
decomposing the identified candidate into a set of elements that include
event sources (Adams: [0035], the monitoring event specification
defines the possible events that may be generated for any component of
the particular ComponentKind (i.e., the identified candidate); [0036],
the monitoring event specification . . . is composed of a monitoring
event specification document. The monitoring event specification
document may comprise an Event natures and an Events document.
The Event Natures document may be an extensible markup language
(XML) file that specifies the monitorable points of execution (i.e., event
sources) and the Events that may be triggered from every monitorable
point. Examiner further specifies that, "defining the possible events
that may be generated for any component of the particular
ComponentKind (i.e., the identified candidate)", has been interpreted
as decomposing the identified candidate. Adams further discloses,
Adams: [0033], provide a monitoring event specification (i.e., monitor
application descriptor data) for various components of an application.
Examiner further specifies that the monitoring event specification (i.e.,
monitor application descriptor data), decomposes the identified
candidates).
Ans. 11-12 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue Adams does not teach limitation ( 1) generating, by a
computer, monitor application descriptor data for an identified candidate by
decomposing the identified candidate into a set of elements (emphasis
4
Appeal2014-008284
Application 12/327,988
added). App. Br. 24--26; Reply Br. 10. According to Appellants, Adams
teaches the "Component-Kind 306 may be scripted or programmed in a
component-kind specific markup language" and "[f]or each ComponentKind
306, a monitoring event specification is provided." App. Br. 24 (citing
Adams i-f 49). Appellant further argues Adams teaches:
A program such as an authoring tool may be used by a developer to
specify the required monitorable events in the form of a subscription
model. Authoring is the process in which a developer may define the
monitoring events that are needed. In this illustrative embodiment,
authoring may include specifying required events in a monitorable
subscription model from a given monitoring event specification model.
App. Br. 24--25 (citing Adams i-f 50).
Appellants argue each component within SCA (service component
architecture) 300 is programmed/scripted in a component-kind specific way
and, therefore, Adam's component is already coded in support of the
monitoring event specification disclosed. Id. at 25. According to
Appellants, Adams discloses a manual process using authoring by a
developer rather than generating, by a computer. Id. Regarding
decomposing the identified candidate into a set of elements, Appellants
argue:
Further Adams does not disclose the operation as claimed of
decomposing the identified candidate into a set of elements. Again with
reference to the previously cited portions, Adams only discloses " ...
an authoring tool may be used by a developer to specify the required
monitorable events . . . " and not decomposing, by a computer, the
identified candidate into a set of elements as is claimed. Adams clearly
does not decompose the identified candidate into a set of elements that
include event sources.
App. Br. 25 (emphasis omitted).
5
Appeal2014-008284
Application 12/327,988
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. In particular, on the
record before us, Appellants' arguments regarding generating and
decomposing by a computer are reasonable and are not addressed by the
Examiner. For example, we do not see in the record an explanation of how
Adams teaches performing this limitation by a computer nor why
performing this limitation by a computer would be obvious in view of the
cited teaching of Adams. In addition, the Examiner presents insufficient
evidence to rebut Appellants' argument that Adams' teaching of authoring is
equivalent to, or suggested by, the claimed "decomposing."
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 8 and 15, 3 which recite limitation 1 (Feature 1). We also
do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20. Cf
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are
nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious .... "). Because our decision with regard to limitation 1 is
dispositive of the rejection of all pending claims, we do not address
additional arguments raised by Appellants.
3In the event of further prosecution regarding claim 15, we note that neither
the claims nor Appellants' Specification may define "computer-recordable
storage medium" so as to exclude transitory media. Consequently, the
claimed medium may encompasses transitory media, which is not patent
eligible. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013)
(precedential); see also In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir.
2007); and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of
Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
6
Appeal2014-008284
Application 12/327,988
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-16,
and 18-20.
REVERSED
7