Ex Parte Nastacio

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2012

11382364 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/382,364 05/09/2006 Denilson Nastacio RSW920060001US1 (236) 5951
46320 7590 10/24/2012
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THU V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DENILSON NASTACIO
____________

Appeal 2010-005062
Application 11/382,364
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 1.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 24,
2009; the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 13, 2009; and, the Reply
Brief filed January 13, 2010.
Appeal 2010-005062
Application 11/382,364

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to “a method, system and computer
program product for the detection of correlation rules in an enterprise
computing monitoring and management system.” See Spec. 19, Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. An enterprise computing monitoring and management
data processing system comprising:
an event management computing platform coupled to a
computing hierarchy of multiple nodes;
event processing logic disposed in the event management
computing platform, the event processing logic comprising
program code enabled to collect events from different ones of
the multiple nodes; and,
proximity detection logic comprising program code
enabled to correlate different ones of events of differing
attribute set according to temporal proximity and to determine a
causal relationship, not previously identified, based upon a
frequency of temporally proximate occurrence of the different
ones of the events of differing attribute sets.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Pohlmann US 6,446,136 B1 Sep. 3, 2002
Kaler US 6,742,143 B2 May 25, 2004
Kobayashi US 2005/0283680 A1 Dec. 22, 2005

Appeal 2010-005062
Application 11/382,364

3
THE REJECTIONS2
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 14-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Pohlmann. Ans. 3-8.
2. The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pohlmann and Kaler. Ans. 8-9.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 12, 13, 19, and 20 under § 103 as
unpatentable over Pohlmann and Kobayashi. Ans. 9-11.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we address the following issue:
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in finding that Pohlmann’s
system determines a previously unidentified causal relationship
of node events?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-20
Claim 1 requires a determination of a previously unidentified causal
relationship of node events. Similarly, independent claims 7 and 14 require

2 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 14-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Ans. 2-3. We note that claims 14-20 do not restrict the recited
“computer usable storage medium” to a non-transitory form. We leave it to
the Examiner to reevaluate claims 14-20 in view of MPEP § 2106, which
was revised after the withdrawal of the § 101 rejection and includes new
guidelines for determining whether a storage medium is directed to statutory
subject matter.
Appeal 2010-005062
Application 11/382,364

4
a reporting of a previously unidentified causal relationship between node
events. The remaining claims depend from claims 1, 7, and 14.3
The Examiner finds that Pohlmann’s system uses an “alarm rule” to
determine a causal relationship, as claimed. Ans. 4 and 12. The Examiner
finds that, in accord with the rule, the system counts the number of
“matching events” within a time window and then determines a causal
relationship between those events if the count exceeds a threshold. Ans.
13-14. According to the Examiner, the causal relationship is identified when
the alarm rule is applied and, thus, “not previously identified” as claimed.
Ans. 12.
Appellant acknowledges that Pohlmann’s alarm rule can be triggered
under “the presence of a certain existing state(s) when another event occurs”
and that “[t]his is a causal relationship.” Reply Br. 3. However, Appellant
argues that the alarm rule – and thus the acknowledged causal relationship –
is previously identified. Reply Br. 3-4. According to Appellant, the
Examiner fails “to recognize that the ‘alarm rule’ is the same as a causal
relationship.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner is not reading
the claimed causal relationship on the alarm rule, but rather on a particular
causal relationship that is identified between the alarm-inducing events of a
given time window. Contrary to Appellant’s contention that the alarm rule
and such a particular causal relationship are “the same,” the alarm rule

3 Claims 2 and 4-6 stand or fall with claim 1, while claims 8-20 stand or fall
with claim 7. App. Br. 6 and 11. However, because the at-issue claim
feature is argued for claims 1, 7, and 14 collectively (App. Br. 7), we
likewise address this feature for claims 1-20 collectively.
Appeal 2010-005062
Application 11/382,364

5
merely sets the parameters for identifying a corresponding type of causal
relationship (i.e., generic) between the various events evaluated under the
rule. Pohlmann, col. 10, ll. 5-43. As such, only a type of causal relationship
is identified by the alarm rule’s creation. A particular causal relationship
between the alarm-inducing events of a given time window is of the
identified type, but not itself identified until the alarm rule’s application to
those events; that is, when the rule’s parameters and window’s events are
compared, as found by the Examiner.

Claims 7-20
Appellant presents an additional argument with respect to claims
7-20.4 Namely, Appellant argues that Pohlmann does not disclose the
claimed threshold “frequency of occurrence of temporal proximity” (claims
7 and 14) because “entirely absent is a discussion that the set of events have
a particular temporal proximity relative to one another.” Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that Pohlmann’s “disclosure of a ‘recurrence’ of a
specific event is equivalent to the claimed threshold.” Ans. 14. According
to the Examiner:
As to the “threshold value,” Pohlmann discloses using
the count value as a “qualifier.” (Col. 10, ll. 5-6). A qualifier is
used to correlate events in a single rule. (Col. 8, ll. 36-39).
Pohlmann further discloses [] the identification of a relationship
through “the recurrence of a particular event within a fixed time
window” (Col. 7, 11. 55-59). Based on the fact that Pohlmann

4 Appellant acquiesces to claims 8-20 standing or falling with claim 7. App.
Br. 6 and 11.
Appeal 2010-005062
Application 11/382,364

6
discloses calculating a frequency of events (a count over a
specific time window), the disclosure of a “recurrence” of a
specific event is equivalent to the claimed threshold.
Id.
In other words, the Examiner finds that Pohlmann requires a threshold
frequency of temporally proximate events by merely requiring a multiplicity
of events within a time window. We agree. Requiring only three such
events in turn requires a threshold frequency of temporally proximate events
because: (i) the first and second events have a required temporal proximity
of less than the duration of the window; (ii) the second and third events also
have a required temporal proximity of less than the duration of the window;
and (iii) these temporally proximate occurrences have a required frequency
of twice within the duration of the window. At times, Pohlmann’s alarm
rule requires at least three matching events within a time window; e.g., when
tracking the “number of times” the events occur (Pohlmann, col. 10, ll. 11-
13) and determining if this quantity reaches an “n” plurality or “tuple” of
events (Pohlmann, col. 14, ll. 26-29).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.

Appeal 2010-005062
Application 11/382,364

7
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

pgc