Ex Parte Rowley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2013

11713905 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/713,905 02/28/2007 Peter Rowley P057 2938
14400 7590 11/12/2013
Patent Docket Administrator
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/12/2013 PAPERPAPER
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 PETER ROWLEY
____________

Appeal 2011-002239
Application 11/713,905
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002239
Application 11/713,905

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-24, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A method comprising:

receiving an event indicator;

generating, by a lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP)
director server, a log entry in a form of an (LDAP) entry in response to the
event indicator; and

storing the LDAP entry in an LDAP repository.

Prior Art
Shih US 6,615,223 B1 Sep. 2, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Shih.

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-16, and 21-24
Appellant contend that Shih does not disclose “generating . . . a log
entry in a form of an (LDAP) entry in response to the event indicator” as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7-11. According to Appellant, a log entry in a
Appeal 2011-002239
Application 11/713,905

3
schema independent canonical format does not describe an LDAP entry,
because an LDAP entry requires a schema. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 2-4.
To support this argument, Appellant relies on evidence from Wikipedia
(App. Br. 10), which we find unpersuasive. Appellant has not provided a
definition of “LDAP entry” in Appellant’s Specification that excludes the
log entry made to a change log at an LDAP site described by Shih in column
9 lines 16-26.
Further, the “log entry in a form of an (LDAP) entry” recited in claim
1 does not affect any steps recited in the method of claim 1. The “log entry
in a form of an (LDAP) entry” is merely a non-functional description of
data. The scope of claim 1 encompasses “generating . . . [data].” Therefore,
the “log entry in a form of an (LDAP) entry” that is generated in claim 1
does not distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of patentability.
See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703
F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential).
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact made in the Final Rejection
and Examiner’s Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claims 11 and 15 (App.
Br. 11) similar to those presented for claim 1, which we find unpersuasive.
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 3,
7-10, 12-14, 16, and 21-24 which fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2011-002239
Application 11/713,905

4
Section 102 rejection of claims 2 and 16
Appellant contends that Shih does not describe “storing a log entry
parameter as an attribute of the LDAP entry” as recited in claim 2. App. Br.
12-13; Reply Br. 4-5. We disagree for the reasons given by the Examiner in
the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer. We also find that the term
“log entry parameter as an attribute of the LDAP entry” is non-functional
descriptive material that does not distinguish the claim from the prior art.
We sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellant
does not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 16 which falls
with claim 1.

Section 102 rejection of claims 4 and 18
Appellant contends that Shih does not describe “applying an LDAP
operation to the log entry” as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br.
5. We disagree for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Rejection
and Examiner’s Answer.
We sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Section 102 rejection of claims 5 and 19
Appellant contends that Shih does not describe “indexing a log
containing the log entry” as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 5-6.
We disagree for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Rejection
and Examiner’s Answer.
We sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Appeal 2011-002239
Application 11/713,905

5
Section 102 rejection of claims 6 and 20
Appellant contends that Shih does not describe “organizing log entries
into an LDAP entry hierarchy” as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 14-15. We
disagree for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and
Examiner’s Answer.
We sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Shih 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

gvw