Ex Parte Vaitzblit et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

10702127 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

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.
10/702,127 11/05/2003 Lev Vaitzblit 04LS-167295 6831
69849 7590 06/27/2013
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
EXAMINER
CASANOVA, JORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2013 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 LEV VAITZBLIT, JONATHON JESSE, JASON ORENDORFF,
STEPHEN NG, and MURRY S. MAZER1
____________

Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES B. ARPIN, and TRENTON A. WARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-34, 36-58, 60-62, 64-66, and 68-70. Claims 5, 35,
59, 63, and 67 are cancelled. Br. 4.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).3 We affirm.

1 Lumigent Technologies, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed August
6, 2010; and (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed October 18, 2010.
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

2

INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to processes, systems, methods, and
agents for collecting information used to monitor and, optionally, to generate
alerts on database activity. See generally Abstract. Such information may
be collected from database transaction logs and traces and correlated to
create data audit reports and to provide data audit browsing capabilities. Id.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with a disputed limitation
emphasized:
1. A process of collecting database audit trail information from a
database that maintains a database transaction log, said process
comprising:

maintaining a trace of database activities performed on the database
including session activities after session establishment and before and
after values, the database activities performed on the database
resulting from commands sent to the database, the trace of database
activities containing information not available through the database
transaction log maintained by the database;

collecting information onto a computer readable medium about
database activities from the database transaction log and the trace; and

correlating the collected database activity information from the
database transaction log and the trace.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Gower
Vaitzblit
Rosensteel Jr.
US 5,535,383
US 2002/0007363 A1
US 6,363,391 B1
July 9, 1996
Jan. 17, 2002
Mar. 26, 2002

3 On March 21, 2013, Appellants waived attendance at an oral hearing
scheduled for this appeal on June 11, 2013.
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

3
Blankesteijn
D’Angelo

US 2002/0165724 A1
US 2004/0230623 A1
Nov. 7, 2002
Nov. 18, 2004 (filed
May 14, 2003)

IS Decisions, EvenTrigger 1.6 (News and Events), 1-2 (June 3, 2002)
http://web.archive.org/web/20020603123726/www.isdecisions.com/index.cf
m?p≡products=eventrigger (hereinafter “ISDecisions”)

Lumigent Technologies, Inc., Log Explorer Walkthrough, 1-18 (Aug. 4,
2002)http://web.archive.org/web/20020804201507/www.lumigent.com/Log
Explorer/walk/walkthrough.htm (hereinafter “Walkthrough”)

S. Myers et al., “Log Explorer for Oracle Advances Enterprise Data
Integrity,” 1-2 (Oct. 7, 2002) http://www.lumigent.com/Press/private
(hereinafter “LogExplorer”)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-13, 25-27, 30-34, 36-41, 45-55,
58, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Walkthrough, Rosensteel, and Blankesteijn. Ans. 4-14.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 14-18, 28, 29, and 42-44 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walkthrough, Rosensteel,
Blankesteijn, and Vaitzblit. Id. at 14-21.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 19, 21, 56, 60, and 64 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Walkthrough, Rosensteel, Blankesteijn,
and ISDecisions. Id. at 21-26.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Walkthrough, Rosensteel, Blankesteijn,
ISDecisions, and Gower. Id. at 26-27.
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

4
5. The Examiner rejected claims 22-24, 65, 66, and 68-70 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walkthrough, Rosensteel,
Blankesteijn, and LogExplorer. Id. at 27-33.
6. The Examiner rejected claims 57 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Walkthrough, Rosensteel, Blankesteijn, and
D’Angelo. Id. at 33-35.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WALKTHROUGH, ROSENSTEEL,
AND BLANKESTEIJN
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Walkthrough teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, except for the step of
maintaining a trace of database activities, i.e., the disputed limitation
identified above. Ans. 4-5 (citing Walkthrough, 3-6, 15, 16). The Examiner
finds, however, that Rosensteel teaches “maintaining a trace of database
activities performed on the database including session activities after session
establishment . . ., the database activities performed on the database resulting
from commands sent to the database, the trace of database activities
containing information not available through the database transaction log
maintained by the database.” Ans. 5 (citing Rosensteel, col. 3, ll. 44-50; col.
6, ll. 29-40). Although Rosensteel does not teach that the trace of database
activities includes “before and after values,” the Examiner finds that
Blankesteijn teaches these values. Ans. 5 (citing Blankesteijn, ¶¶ [0011],
[0048], [0050], [0052]-[0054], [0127]). The Examiner concludes that,
because the applied references are in the same field of endeavor (Ans. 5-6)
and in view of the advantages recited in the applied references (id. at 6-7), a
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

5
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have reason to combine the
teachings of these references to achieve the invention recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue (1) that neither Walkthrough nor Rosensteel teaches
“a trace of database activities” (Br. 18-21); (2) that Blankesteijn does not
teach a trace of database activities including “before and after values” (id. at
21-23); (3) that none of the applied references teaches the steps of:
collecting information onto a computer readable medium
about database activities from the database transaction log and
the trace; and
correlating the collected database activity information
from the database transaction log and the trace (emphasis
added)

(id. at 23); and (4) that the Examiner fails to demonstrate a reason
why a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would combine the
references in the manner proposed to achieve the invention recited in
claim 1 (id. at 24-25). Consequently, Appellants argue that the
Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case for obviousness. Br.
23-25.
ISSUES
(1) Under § 103(a), has the Examiner erred by finding that
Walkthrough, Rosensteel, and Blankesteijn, collectively, teach or suggest:
(a) “maintaining a trace of database activities performed on the
database including session activities after session establishment and
before and after values, the database activities performed on the
database resulting from commands sent to the database, the trace of
database activities containing information not available through the
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

6
database transaction log maintained by the database,” as recited in
claim 1?
(b) “collecting information onto a computer readable medium about
database activities from the database transaction log and the trace,” as
recited in claim 1?
(c) “correlating the collected database activity information from the
database transaction log and the trace,” as recited in claim 1?
(2) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
1. Claim Construction
We begin by construing the disputed limitation of claim 1 which calls
for, in pertinent part,
maintaining a trace of database activities performed on the
database including session activities after session establishment
and before and after values, the database activities performed
on the database resulting from commands sent to the database,
the trace of database activities containing information not
available through the database transaction log maintained by the
database.

In construing this limitation, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the words in their ordinary usage, as those words would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions supplied
by Appellants’ Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

7
Although Appellants provide various examples of “traces” of database
activities, Appellants do not define this term in the Specification. For
example, referring to Figure 4, Appellants indicate that
[d]atabase server 104 may provide capabilities for executing
certain functions in response to a particular command sent to a
database. The results of executing these functions are referred
to as “traces” . . . . Traces may be collected in response to
critical commands, such as, for example, logging in and logging
out of the database, changing database schema and, changing
the database structure.

Spec. 12:11-16. Referring to the language of claim 1, we note that traces of
database activities are recited as “including session activities after session
establishment and before and after values.” Session establishment includes
the time of login. Id. at 4:20-21. Further, claim 1 recites that “the trace of
database activities contain[s] information not available through the database
transaction log maintained by the database.” We note that this portion of the
description of a trace of database activities is a negative limitation and does
not prohibit the trace from including transaction log information.
A pertinent definition of the term “trace” is “[t]o provide a record of
every step, or selected steps, executed by a computer program, and by
extension, the record produced by this operation.” MCGRAW-HILL
DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS 1948 (4th ed. 1988)
(emphasis added). Moreover, a pertinent definition of the term “transaction
log” is “[a] file that records transactional changes occurring in a database,
providing a basis for updating a master file and establishing an audit trail.”
MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 64 (5th ed. 2002) (equating the
definitions of “transaction log” and “change file”). Similarly, a pertinent
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

8
definition of the term “audit trail” is “a means of tracing all activities
affecting a piece of information, such as a data record . . . .” Id. at 42
(emphasis added). Thus, there is some overlap in the definitions of the terms
“trace” and “transaction log.”
For purposes of this decision, we interpret the term “trace of database
activities” to describe a record of every step or of selected steps executed by
a computer program and, in particular, the results of the executed steps. As
used in claim 1, the term “trace of database activities” specifically includes
steps executed by a computer program and occurring after login, e.g.,
“session activities after session establishment” (emphasis added), and
database values before and after the execution of such steps. Finally, we
determine that the term “trace of database activities” may contain
information that is included in a transaction log, in addition to information
that is not included in a transaction log.
2. Teaching a Trace of Database Activities
Appellants argue that neither Walkthrough nor Rosensteel teaches a
trace of database activities. Br. 18-21. Initially, we note that the Examiner
expressly does not rely on Walkthrough to teach a trace of database
activities. Ans. 41. Therefore, we do not address further Appellants’
arguments with respect to Walkthrough on this issue.
The Examiner finds, however, that Rosensteel teaches a “trace of
database activities.” Ans. 40-41. With respect to Rosensteel, Appellants
argue that Rosensteel logs the Structured Query Language (SQL) statements
sent to the database server, but fails to capture the “more general
information” included in Appellants’ traces of database activities. Br. 19.
Although Appellants acknowledge that Rosensteel captures the text of the
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

9
SQL statement, Appellants argue that text “will not and cannot indicate
whether the requested statement succeeded and what effects its execution
actually had on the database.” Id. We disagree with Appellants’ limited
reading of Rosensteel.
As the Examiner notes, Rosensteel describes the creation of a Log 2,
which is a User_Requests record, that includes not only the text of the SQL
statement, i.e., SQL_Text,” but also “Return-Status, Return_Rows,
Return_Bytes.” Ans. 41; see Rosensteel, col. 6, ll. 29-40. From this
description of Log 2, the Examiner concludes that Rosensteel teaches
maintaining a trace of database activities. Ans. 41. We are persuaded that,
in view of Rosensteel’s inclusion of “Return” data in Log 2 and our
interpretation of the term “trace of database activities,” Rosensteel teaches
maintaining data concerning the results, e.g., “Return-Status” and
“Return_Rows,” of executed steps, e.g., the SQL statement, and that
Rosensteel teaches “maintaining a trace of database activities” and that “the
database activities performed on the database result[] from commands[, e.g.,
SQL statements,] sent to the database.” Further, because Rosensteel’s Log
1 describes a related User_Session record, we are also persuaded that
Rosensteel’s Log 2 describes data “including session activities after session
establishment.” Ans. 6. Finally, because a transaction log is “[a] file that
records transactional changes occurring in a database . . .” (MICROSOFT
COMPUTER DICTIONARY at 64 (emphasis added)) and because Rosensteel
describes that Log 2 includes “Return” data, we further are persuaded that
Rosensteel teaches maintaining “the trace of database activities containing
information not available through the database transaction log maintained by
the database” (emphasis added). Ans. 6.
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

10
3. Teaching of Trace Including Before and After Values
The Examiner relies on Blankesteijn to teach the “before and after
values” included in the “trace of database activities,” as recited in claim 1.
Ans. 5. Appellants argue that Blankesteijn does not teach a “trace of
database activities” and, instead, that Blankesteijn only describes a
transaction log of database changes and that Blankesteijn’s before and after
images merely teach the changes that occur in the database. Br. 22-23.
Appellants’ arguments miss the purpose of the Examiner’s inclusion of
Blankesteijn in this rejection.
The Examiner does not rely on Blankesteijn to teach the trace of
database activities, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 41. As noted above, the
Examiner relies on Rosensteel to teach the trace of database activities. Id. at
40-41. The Examiner relies on Blankesteijn merely to teach that before and
after values may be included in a log, such as a trace. Id. at 41. Thus, we
are persuaded that the Examiner properly has applied Blankesteijn to teach
that a trace, such as that taught by Rosensteel, may include before and after
values, as recited in claim 1.
4. Teaching of Collecting and Correlating Steps
Appellants argue that Walkthrough, Rosensteel, and Blankesteijn fail
to teach “collecting” information from a database transaction log and a trace
and “correlating” that collected information. Br. 23. In particular,
Appellants argue that Walkthrough merely teaches the existence of a
transaction log and fails to teach either the collection of information from a
database transaction log or the correlation of information from a database
transaction log and a trace. Id.
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

11
The Examiner, however, finds that Walkthrough teaches the
presentation of information in a single virtual log, which is drawn from
multiple logs. Ans. 38 (citing Walkthrough, 3-5). We agree with the
Examiner that Walkthrough teaches the collection of information from a
transaction log. Id. Moreover, Rosensteel describes another type of log,
Log 2, which teaches a trace. Id.; see Rosensteel, col. 6, ll. 29-40
(describing Log 1 and Log 2). Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that Walkthrough and Rosensteel adequately teach “collecting
information onto a computer readable medium about database activities from
the database transaction log and the trace,” as recited in claim 1.
In addition, the Examiner finds that Walkthrough teaches the
correlation of information. Ans. 39. In particular, Walkthrough teaches that
information may be organized according to a transaction ID, e.g., “Transid”
of Walkthrough’s Browse Log. Id. (citing Walkthrough, 5). A pertinent
definition of the term “correlate” is “to place in or bring into mutual or
reciprocal relation; establish an orderly connection.” RANDOM HOUSE
WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY 299 (2d Random House ed. 1999).
Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner has demonstrated that
Walkthrough “correlates” information collected from multiple transaction
logs (Ans. 39), and that the Examiner properly concluded that the addition of
Rosensteel’s disclosure of a trace, e.g., Log 2, teaches or suggests
“correlating the collected database activity information from the database
transaction log and the trace” (id. at 5, 39), as recited in claim 1.
5. Reason to Combine
Finally, Appellants argue that, although the Examiner asserts a reason
to combine the teachings of Walkthrough, Rosensteel, and Blankesteijn
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

12
(Ans. 40), the reason to combine asserted by the Examiner is different from
the purpose of embodiments of the claimed invention. Br. 24-25. Assuming
arguendo that the Examiner asserts a different reason to combine the
references than that suggested by Appellants’ claimed invention, this does
not mean that the Examiner’s reason is insufficient. As the U.S. Supreme
Court has explained, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem
known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the
patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner
claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Here, the Examiner indicates that Rosensteel teaches that there are
advantages in reducing the overhead involved in gathering statistics
(Rosensteel, col. 3, ll. 49-54) by combining information in a separate log,
and that Blankesteijn teaches that there also are advantages to constructing
an audit trail including before and after images (Blankesteijn, ¶ [0011]). See
Ans. 6-7, 40. Based on these advantages, the Examiner concludes that a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have reason to modify the
teachings of Walkthrough in view of the teachings of Rosensteel and
Blankesteijn to achieve the invention, as recited in claim 1.4 We discern no
error in the Examiner’s reasoning.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 41, 45,
53, 55, 58, and 62, which include limitations commensurate with the
disputed limitation of claim 1 (Br. 25); and (3) dependent claims 2, 3, 6-13,

4 With respect to the combination of Blankesteijn and Walkthrough, we
further note that Walkthrough teaches the inclusion of “old” and “new”
values, corresponding to Blankesteijn’s “before” and “after” images, in the
collected and correlated information. Ans. 37 (citing Walkthrough, 4).
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

13
25-27, 30-34, 36-40, 46-52, and 54, which were not separately argued with
particularity. Therefore, we sustain this rejection of claims 1-3, 6-13, 25-27,
30-34, 36-41, 45-55, 58, and 62.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WALKTHROUGH, ROSENSTEEL,
BLANKESTEIJN, AND LOGEXPLORER
As noted above, the Examiner rejected claims 22-24, 65, 66, and
68-70 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walkthrough, Rosensteel,
Blankesteijn, and LogExplorer. Ans. 27-33. Each of claims
22-24 depends, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1 and recites
collecting audit information for a second database that may be of a different
type from the database of claim 1. Br. 31. Further, independent claim 65
recites a system for auditing multiple databases that also may be of different
types. Id. at 40-41. The Examiner finds that LogExplorer teaches that the
system described in Walkthrough may be applied to databases created in
Oracle8i software, as well as those created using Microsoft software. Ans.
28, 31; see Spec. 8:25-27. Appellants argue, however, (1) that LogExplorer
describes two independent products that operate on different platforms and
(2) that each product “is further limited to operating on a single database for
that platform at a particular time.” Br. 26.
Initially, we note that each of claims 22-24 depends, directly or
indirectly, from independent claim 1; and Appellants argue that these claims
are distinguishable over the references applied against their base claim, for
the same reasons discussed above. Br. 27. Because Appellants have not
persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1, we also are not
persuaded of error in the rejections of dependent claims 22-24. In addition,
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

14
Appellants do not demonstrate that either the process of independent claim 1
or the system of independent claim 65 requires (1) that the process or system
operates on a single platform or (2) that the process or system operates on
multiple databases simultaneously, i.e., “at a particular time.” Because we
do not interpret claim 1 or 65 as requiring either of these limitations, we
conclude that Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of the rejected claims. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded
by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these
claims.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS OVER WALKTHROUGH,
ROSENSTEEL, AND BLANKESTEIJN IN COMBINATION WITH ONE
OR MORE OF VAITZBLIT, ISDECISIONS, GOWER, AND D’ANGELO
As noted above, the Examiner rejected claims 4, 14-18, 28, 29, and
42-44 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walkthrough, Rosensteel,
Blankesteijn, and Vaitzblit; claims 19, 21, 56, 60, and 64 under § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Walkthrough, Rosensteel, Blankesteijn, and ISDecisions;
claim 20 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walkthrough, Rosensteel,
Blankesteijn, ISDecisions, and Gower; and claims 57 and 61 under § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Walkthrough, Rosensteel, Blankesteijn, and D’Angelo.
Ans. 14-27, 33-34. Each of these claims depends, directly or indirectly,
from independent claim 1, 41, 45, 53, 55, or 62; and Appellants do not argue
these dependent claims separately from their base claims, with particularity.
Br. 25-26. For the same reasons that Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the rejection of independent claims 1, 41, 45, 53, 55, and 62,
discussed above; we are not persuaded of error in the rejections of dependent
Appeal 2011-004692
Application 10/702,127

15
claims 4, 14-21, 28, 29, 42-44, 56, 57, 60, 61, and 64. Therefore, we sustain
the rejections of these dependent claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 6-34, 36-58, 60-62,
64-66, and 68-70 under § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-34, 36-58, 60-62,
64-66, and 68-70 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc