Ex Parte Ustaris

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 16, 2011

10737653 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ERIC USTARIS
_____________

Appeal 2009-012573
Application 10/737,653
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JASON V. MORGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 25.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for managing log files. See
page 2 of Appellant‟s Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and is reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-012573
Application 10/737,653

2

1. A method for managing log files, comprising:
creating a configuration file to define source log files to which log
statements are sent to be archived;
registering an archiving utility with a task scheduling service, said
task scheduling service periodically invoking said archiving utility;
traversing directories, by said archiving utility, to locate source log
files according to said configuration file;
copying located source log files, by said archiving utility, to create
corresponding archive files; and
deleting content from said source log files by said archiving.

REFERENCES
Falls US 6,247,149 B1 Jun. 12, 2001
Horne US 2002/0138762 A1 Sep. 26, 2002
Chen US 2002/0161890 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Becker US 2003/0195921 A1 Oct. 16, 2003
Pearl US 2004/0260893 A1 Dec. 23, 2004

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Horne, Chen, Pearl, Falls, and Becker. The
Examiner‟s rejection is on pages 4 through 38 of the Answer.
1

1
Throughout this decision we refer to the Answer dated February 26, 2009.
While claims 21-25 are not identified in the rejection, Appellants have
considered them to be included in the rejection. See page 11 of the Brief.
Appeal 2009-012573
Application 10/737,653

3

ISSUE
Appellant argues on pages 12 through 19 of the Brief and pages 3 and
4 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner‟s rejection of independent claims 1,
9, and 18 is in error.
2
These arguments present us with the issue: did the
Examiner err in finding that the combination of references teaches deleting
content from a source log file as claimed?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant‟s arguments in the Briefs and we concur
with Appellant‟s conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of references teach deleting content from a source log file, by
an archiving activity.
Independent claims 1, 9 and 18 recite limitations directed to deleting
content from stored a log file.
The Examiner, in rejecting independent claims 1, 9, and 18, finds that
Falls‟s disclosure of using token ID‟s used in log entries teaches
“„detaching‟/„removing and associating‟ (and thus „deleting‟) message
strings.” Answer 42. Further, the Examiner, citing Falls columns 5 and 6,
finds the header of log file 44 and log file 44 only contain similar
information, thus it is clear that content is deleted. Answer 44. We disagree
with the Examiner, that these teachings are directed to deleting content from
log files. The use of token ID‟s to represent strings of constants as discussed
by the Examiner on page 42 of the Answer does not include a discussion of

2
Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated January 8, 2009, and
Reply Brief dated April 11, 2009.
Appeal 2009-012573
Application 10/737,653

4

deleting information from the log file. Further, as argued by the Appellant
on pages 4 and 5 of the Reply Brief, the headers being different in two log
files is not necessarily the result of deleting but may also be the result of
incomplete copying. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner‟s
rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 18, nor the claims which depend
thereupon: claims 2 through 8, 10 through 17, and 19 through 25.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner‟s decision to
reject claims 1 through 25.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 25 is
reversed.

REVERSED

ELD