Ex Parte Sayal

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2011

11041539 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MEHMET SAYAL
____________

Appeal 2009-008493
Application 11/041,539
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-27. The Appellant appeals
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-008493
Application 11/041,539

2
A. INVENTION
The invention at issue on appeal relates to:

Time-series data [which] comprises values for numeric data
objects coupled with time-stamps as snapshots of time.
Analysis of time-series data includes finding or discerning
correlations among numeric values over the course of time.
Finding time-correlations is often even more difficult than
finding correlations among numeric data sequences. This is true
because time-distance values are taken into consideration when
finding time-correlations. For example, it is often necessary to
take into consideration a time delay between a cause and effect,
thus increasing the complexity and difficulty of establishing
correlations.…

It should be appreciated that in the development of any such
actual implementation, as in any engineering or design project,
numerous implementation-specific decisions are made to
achieve the developers' specific goals, such as compliance with
system-related and business-related constraints, which vary
from one implementation to another. Moreover, it should be
appreciated that such a development effort could be complex
and time consuming, but would nevertheless be a routine
undertaking of design, fabrication, and manufacture for those of
ordinary skill having the benefit of this disclosure…

identifying time correlations (i.e., correlations between
numeric values over the course of time), which indicate time-
based relationships among data objects or time series data
streams (TSDSs). For example, embodiments of the present
invention identify a time-based relationship such as "when A
increases more than 5%, B is expected to increase more than
10% within 2 days with 75% confidence". As illustrated,
method 10 comprises six method operations that are performed
in accordance with embodiments of the present invention to
facilitate the correlation of TSDSs. Specifically, method 10
Appeal 2009-008493
Application 11/041,539

3
includes inputting data (block 12), summarizing data (block
14), detecting change points (block 16), identifying groups
(block 18), comparing streams (block 20), and generating and
outputting information (block 22).

(Spec. 2-3; 3-4; 4-5)

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows.
1. A method for discovering correlations among data,
comprising:
detecting change points in time-series data streams;
defining change point properties based on the change
points;
grouping together two time-series data streams that have
a similar change point property;
calculating a behavior index for the two time-series data
streams; and
assigning the two time-series data streams to a server
taking into account the behavior index.

C. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence:
Pincus US 5,769,793 A Jun. 1, 1998
Yu US 2003/0061132 A1 Mar. 27, 2003
Wong US 6,593,862 Bl Jul. 15, 2003
Zahavi US 6,622,221 Bl Sep. 16, 2003
Millar US 2003/0226071 A1 Dec. 4, 2003
Triulzi US 2004/0117478 A1 Jun. 17, 2004

Appeal 2009-008493
Application 11/041,539

4
Doerffel, "The shape of CUSUM - an indicator for tendencies in a time
series", Fresenius' Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 30 Sept. 1991, Springer
Berlin! Heidelberg, Vol. 341, No.9

D. REJECTIONS

Claims 1, 3, 8, 12-13, 15-16, 18-22, 24-25, and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Wong
Claims 2 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of Zahavi,
Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of Yu.
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of Doerffel.
Claims 6, 17, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of Millar.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of Pincus.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of Triulzi.

Appeal 2009-008493
Application 11/041,539

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999) “In other words, if granting patent protection on
the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from
practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether
it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id. (citations omitted).
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). "[T]he PTO gives
claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Of course, anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test." In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. United States Int'l
Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). "An
anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the
claims." Standard Havens Prods., Inc., v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d
1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Appeal 2009-008493
Application 11/041,539

6
35 U.S.C. §103
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be
“more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 1740. Appellant has the burden on appeal to
the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an
applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Therefore, we look to
Appellant’s Briefs to show error in the proffered prima facie case.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 12, 21, and 26 as a single
group. (App. Br. 8-9). Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for this grouping. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant's main contention is
that the compressing of time-series data of Wong into a plurality of data
blocks and summarizing each block with representative data values
representing the local minimum, local maximum, an average, and modal
value does not disclose "detecting change points" (App. Br. 9). Appellant
further contends that the term "change point" has a meaning that is well-
known by those of ordinary skill in the relevant art and Appellant provides
examples of change points. (App. Br. 9-10). Appellant further contends that
Appeal 2009-008493
Application 11/041,539

7
the Examiner has "continued confusion with regards to the distinction
between change points and local extrema" (Reply Br. 3). We disagree with
Appellant's contention and find no express definition identified by Appellant
in the originally filed Specification nor has Appellant provided any extrinsic
evidence of the asserted well-known meaning. Therefore Appellant's
argument is not persuasive of error in the Examiner's showing of
anticipation.
Appellant contends that "while local extrema can potentially
correspond to change points, all local extrema are not change points and all
change points are not local extrema." (App. Br. 10). While we agree with
Appellant's contention, Appellant admits that there is a situation where the
Examiner's position is a reasonable interpretation, but not always.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Wong teaches
detecting change points and defining change point properties. We further
note that Appellant’s Specification states "[f]urther, in some embodiments of
the present invention, the operations in the illustrated method 10 do not
necessarily operate in the illustrated order." (Spec. 4)
Appellant argues that the Wong reference is not enabled with respect
to detecting change points and the Examiner has not shown how the Wong
reference would recognize that such extrema is also a change point. (App.
Br. 11). Appellant further contends that the "Examiner does not appear to be
giving any weight to the recitations relating to detecting change points…
[W]hile the Wong reference may accidentally detect an actual change point
by detecting a local extrema, the Wong reference does not disclose detecting
local extrema." (App. Br. 11). We disagree with Appellant's contention and
find no support for Appellant's contention in the express language of
Appeal 2009-008493
Application 11/041,539

8
independent claim 1 which would differentiate detecting a stream of data
and points therein versus only detecting specific data points.
Appellant contends that the Wong reference does not teach grouping
together time-series data streams based on a similar change point property.
(App. Br. 12). The Examiner maintains that Wong is directed to a data
aggregation window with a time interval of specific measurement counters
with regards to cache I/O operations and cache hit percentages. (Ans.18).
We agree with the Examiner that the aggregation of like kind data over a
period of time would be a grouping based on a similar change point
property. Therefore, Appellant's argument does not show error in the
Examiner's showing of anticipation.
Appellant further argues that the Wong reference fails to disclose
calculating a behavior index. (App. Br. 14). Appellant further contends that
"[a] behavior Index includes a single number that identifies the recent
behavior of a change point data stream" (App. Br. 14) and cites to page 16,
paragraph 33 of Appellant's Specification to support this contention.
Appellant provides further proffered distinctions based upon Appellant's
disclosure, and ultimately relies upon the prior argument that the Wong
reference does not disclose determining a "change point." (App. Br. 14).
We disagree with Appellant concerning the presence of a change point and
find that Appellant's Specification does not expressly define the terms
"behavior index" and "change point." To interpret Appellant's claim
language as Appellant urges would require us to read into the claim
language limitations found only in Appellant's Specification, which we
cannot do.
Appeal 2009-008493
Application 11/041,539

9
With respect to Appellant's arguments concerning assigning the to
time-series data streams to a server taking into account behavior index,
Appellant argues that a mere list of data sources along with what amounts to
an image of a server is insufficient to teach the recited feature, but we find
Appellant's claim language to be broad enough to be met by a single server
and grouping of the data with respect to some broad based "behavior index"
as maintained by the Examiner. Therefore, Appellant's argument does not
show error in the Examiner's showing of anticipation, and we will sustain
the rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 12, 21, and 26
grouped therewith.

Obviousness
With respect to the rejection of various dependent claims and
independent claim 27 based upon obviousness, Appellant asserts that the
additional references do not remedy the deficiencies noted with respect to
the independent claims and therefore in the Examiner's rejection is an error.
We disagree with Appellant and find Appellant's generalized commentary
with respect to the additional references to not show specific error in the
Examiner's showing of obviousness. Therefore, we will sustain the
obviousness rejections of the dependent claims.
With regards to independent claim 27, Appellant provides an
additional argument that “the Wong reference fails to disclose ‘assigning the
time-series data group to a server using an algorithm using a type of
computing environment in which the server resides.’" (App. Br. 20). The
Examiner further identifies the teachings of the use of an average as an index
and maintains that is consistent with Appellant's figure 2 uses a "mean" as an
Appeal 2009-008493
Application 11/041,539

10
index and that the Millar reference teaches refreshing the time-series data
streams using an aging mechanism. (Answer 22-23). Appellant in the
Reply Brief does not respond to the Examiner's further clarification, and we
accept the Examiner's correlation. Therefore, Appellant has not shown error
in the Examiner’s showing of obviousness of independent claim 27.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant has not shown that that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under anticipation.

VII. ORDER
We affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, 12-13, 15-16,
18-22, 24-25, and 26 and the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4-7, 9-11,
14, 17, 23, and 27.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

tkl