HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LP

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 7, 2021

2020003731 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2021)

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.
15/033,200 04/29/2016 Alon Sade 90199914 8760
146568 7590 10/07/2021
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
GUYTON, PHILIP A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/07/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALON SADE, ILYA BRODIN, and ERAN SAMUNI
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200
Technology Center 2100

Before ERIC B. CHEN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–16, and 18–23, all of the
claims under consideration.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as EntIT Software LLC.
Appeal Brief filed June 26, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2.
2 Appellant cancelled claims 3, 10, and 17. Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
The subject matter of Appellant’s application relates to “automatically
diagnosing computer and software issues by analyzing log files,” and more
specifically, to debugging a target computer based on a difference between
sets of atoms associated with event log messages. Spec. ¶ 7.3 According to
Appellant, an “atom can be defined as a set of elements that is common in
many samples contained in a data set, and therefore is potentially
meaningful in some sense.” Id. ¶ 23. A module of the computing device
“identif[ies] atoms which can be used to sparsely represent a set of
documents” such as event log messages. Id. The computing device
compares a “first set of atoms [associated with event log messages from the
target computer] to a second set of atoms associated with a second set of
event log messages from a plurality of computers” and debugs the target
computer based on an identified difference between the first set of atoms and
the second set of atoms obtained from the comparison of the first set of
atoms and the second set of atoms. Appeal Br. 14.
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
limitations at issue italicized, exemplifies the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:

3 In addition to the Appeal Brief noted above, we refer to: (1) the original
Specification filed April 29, 2016 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action
mailed January 29, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed
September 16, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed December 4,
2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

3
receiving, at a computing device, a first set of event log
messages from a target computer;
generating, by the computing device, at least one cluster
of message templates based on the first set of event log
messages, each message template comprising a partial text
portion of particular type of event log message, the partial text
portion excluding one or more variable parameters;
generating, by the computing device, a first set of atoms
based on the at least one cluster of message templates;
comparing, by the computing device, the first set of atoms
to a second set of atoms associated with a second set of event
log messages from a plurality of computers;
automatically identifying, by the computing device, a
difference between the first set of atoms and the second set of
atoms based on a comparison of the first set of atoms and the
second set of atoms; and
automatically debugging, by the computing device, a
problem on the target computer based on the identified
difference between the first set of atoms and the second set of
atoms.
Appeal Br. 14, Claims Appendix.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–16, and 18–23, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Cohen et al.
(US 2011/0185234 A1, published July 28, 2011) (“Cohen”) and Pietrek (US
2008/0168311 A1, published July 10, 2008). Final Act. 2–8.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

4
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner errs and we adopt as our own
the findings and conclusions set forth by the Examiner to the extent
consistent with our analysis herein. Final Act. 2–8; Ans. 3–6.
Independent claim 1 recites, in part, “comparing, by the computing
device, the first set of atoms to a second set of atoms associated with a
second set of event log messages from a plurality of computers.” Appeal
Br. 14.
The Examiner finds Cohen’s discussion of an atom recogniser module
teaches or suggests this limitation. Final Act. 3 (citing Cohen ¶¶ 76, 102).
Appellant argues that “Cohen is silent regarding comparing a first set
of atoms to a second set of atoms.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).
We are unpersuaded. Cohen discloses that “atom recogniser module
414 is arranged to identify sets of events (or, in fact, message cluster
templates representing the events) that tend to occur together.” Cohen ¶ 76.
Cohen further discloses that “atom recognizer module 414 provides an
alternative representation of the full log file, as a collection of so-called
atoms, where each atom comprises an identified set of one or more event
messages produced by one process or failure.” Id. Cohen compares the
atoms A1 and A2 created by the atom recognizer module 414 to determine a
measure of similarity. Id. ¶ 102; see Fig. 11b. Accordingly, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings that Cohen teaches comparing sets of atoms as
claimed. Moreover, we note that Appellant’s conclusory argument is not
supported by evidence found in the record but is, instead, supported only by
attorney argument which “cannot take the place of evidence.” In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

5
Independent claim 1 further recites, in part, “automatically
identifying, by the computing device, a difference between the first set of
atoms and the second set of atoms based on a comparison of the first set of
atoms and the second set of atoms.” Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Cohen and Pietrek
to teach or suggest this limitation. Ans. 4 (citing Cohen ¶¶ 20, 24, 75, 77
and Figs. 1a, 1b; Pietrek ¶¶ 3, 19, 25, 30, 37 and Fig. 9). Of particular
relevance, the Examiner finds:
Cohen teaches identifying and generating atoms from sets of
event log messages (paragraph 75). Event log messages, and
therefore atoms, which are an alternative representation of event
log messages, are comprised of text (paragraphs 20, 24, 77, and
Figures 1a, 1b). This is identical to the log messages and atoms
described in Appellant’s Specification (paragraphs 20, 28).
Cohen does not, however, expressly disclose comparing and
identifying differences between atoms, and debugging based on
the differences.
Pietrek teaches comparing and identifying differences
between snapshot configuration settings, and debugging based
on the differences (paragraphs 3, 19, 25, 37). Snapshots of
configuration settings comprise text that indicates attributes and
settings related to the problem to be diagnosed (paragraphs 29,
30, 37, and Figure 9).
Id.
Appellant argues that “Pietrek is silent regarding atoms, much less
automatically identifying a difference between two set of atoms associated
with different sets of event log messages.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Pietrek
¶ 19).
Because Appellant’s argument turns on the meaning of “atoms,” we
must interpret this term before we compare the limitation at issue to the cited
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

6
prior art. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
According to the Specification, “[a]n atom can be defined as a set of
elements that is common in many samples contained in a data set, and
therefore is potentially meaningful in some sense. As such, a new or
existing set can be sparsely represented using such atoms.” Spec. ¶ 23.
According to this definition, an atom is “a set of elements that is common in
many samples contained in a data set.” Id. The Examiner relies on an
alternative portion of the Specification to obtain a different interpretation of
atom as recited in the claims, determining that:
[A]n atom is simply a string of “1”s and “0”s which indicate the
dictionary words that are present in the particular set of
documents which the atom represents (paragraph 28). Therefore,
a comparison of atoms is simply a comparison between two
strings of “1”s and “0”s. In other words, in at least one
interpretation of the claims, “comparing . . . the first set of atoms
to a second set of atoms” is a simple text comparison.
Answer 5. The portion of the Specification cited by the Examiner explains
that in Appellant’s system, “a user provides a document or corpus of
documents as input to the system,” which then “parses the documents to
words, and represents each document by the set of words that are present in
the document” by inserting “a ‘1’ in the location of words that are present in
the document, and ‘0’ everywhere else.” The “process is then carried out on
the corpus of documents . . . and the output is a set of atoms, wherein each
atom is the size of the dictionary, with ‘1’s in locations of words included in
the atom and ‘0’ everywhere else.” Spec. ¶ 28.
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

7
“The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification is . . . an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the
specification.’” In re Smith Int’l Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Here, we agree the Examiner’s interpretation corresponds with the
Specification because the Specification describes comparing atoms as a
comparison between two strings of text. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 28).
Appellant, in turn, provides insufficient evidence or persuasive reasoning to
show the Examiner’s interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification, or
otherwise unreasonably broad. Rather, in response to the Examiner’s
interpretation of atoms, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation
based on the Specification’s discussion of “the content and comparing of
atoms is solely based on asserted teachings of Appellants’ Specification.”
Reply Br. 3 (citing Answer 5). While this statement is true, it does not
persuasively demonstrate that the Examiner’s interpretation of atoms fails to
correspond with the Specification.
Turning back to the Examiner’s findings, based on either of the
interpretations of atom discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that
Pietrek teaches identifying a difference between sets of atoms. First, with
respect to the Examiner’s interpretation of comparing atoms as “a simple
text comparison” between data sets, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
“that the comparison of snapshots in Pietrek is performed in an equal
manner” because Pietrek “shows a comparison of settings between
Computer1 and Computer2, where each setting is represented by, for
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

8
example, a number, or a ‘true’ or ‘false.’” Ans. 5 (citing Pietrek ¶ 37,
Fig. 9).
As discussed in the first interpretation of atoms above, the
Specification states that “[a]n atom can be defined as a set of elements that is
common in many samples contained in a data set.” Spec. ¶ 23. In view of
this interpretation of an atom, we also find Pietrek’s comparing of snapshots
teaches identifying a difference between sets of atoms. For example, Pietrek
discloses that “Snapshot data (242 and 244) is created for each of these
computer systems and contains the attributes and settings that are likely to
be relevant in diagnosing problems.” Pietrek ¶ 25. Each snapshot in Pietrek
includes data from event logs of different machines having common
elements in that the snapshots each include certain attributes and settings
likely to be relevant in diagnosing problems. Id. In addition, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that “Pietrek teaches comparing and identifying
differences between snapshot configuration settings, and debugging based
on the differences.” Ans. 4 (citing Pietrek ¶¶ 3, 19, 25, 37).
Accordingly, in view of either interpretation of atoms, we find
unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that “Pietrek is silent regarding atoms,
much less automatically identifying a difference between two set of atoms
associated with different sets of event log messages.” Appeal Br. 8.
Next, Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to provide sufficient
evidence or reasoning to show the “atoms of Cohen are ‘analogous’ to the
configuration setting snapshots of Pietrek.” Id.
The Examiner’s responds that “the process of comparing snapshots [in
Pietrek] can equally be applied to atoms as described by Cohen, as both
snapshots and atoms consist of text.” Ans. 4. The Examiner, therefore,
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

9
determines, and we agree, that the modification would have been a “[s]imple
substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.”
MPEP § 2141 III (B); See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). Appellant, in turn, has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
418).
Moreover, Appellant’s argument is similarly unpersuasive in view of
the Examiner’s determination that both Cohen and Pietrek teach comparing
sets of atoms. Appellant argues that the atoms of Cohen are not analogous
to the configuration setting snapshots of Pietrek because “the atoms and
configuration settings snapshots are generated in very different manners,
will have different formats, and will include different information.” Appeal
Br. 9. This argument is unpersuasive because in view of the Examiner’s
broad but reasonable interpretation of atoms, as recited in claim 1, both
Cohen and Pietrek teach identifying a difference between sets of atoms,
thereby demonstrating that the teachings of the references are analogous to
each other in that they both relate to comparing atoms.
Next, Appellant argues “the rejection is based on an improper
hindsight reconstruction of the claims” because “neither Cohen nor Pietrek
describe or even mention comparing two sets of atoms, much less
identifying a difference between the two sets of atoms based on a
comparison of the two sets of atoms.” Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 7. Because
we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “neither Cohen nor
Pietrek describe or even mention comparing two sets of atoms” as set forth
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

10
above, Appellant’s hindsight argument is unpersuasive for similar reasons.
Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues that the “provided rationale for the proposed
modification is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness”
because “Pietrek, without any modification, already provides the benefit
asserted to be provided by the proposed modification (i.e., ‘to diagnose
system failures’).”
This argument does not squarely address the Examiner’s stated
reasoning. The Examiner concludes that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to [modify Cohen based on Pietrek] in order
to diagnose system failures, as desired by Cohen (paragraph 125), as well as
Pietrek (paragraphs 1 and 3).” Final Act. 4. One of the paragraphs of
Pietrek cited by the Examiner discloses that it is advantageous to use
heuristics for debugging or diagnosing system failures. See Pietrek ¶ 3
(“heuristics are used to determine which differences are actually logically
equivalent and thus not to be identified as differences.”). Appellant,
however, fails to demonstrate that Cohen teaches or suggests using heuristics
for diagnosing system failures. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
that “it would have been obvious to . . . modify Cohen by identifying
configuration differences, as taught by Pietrek” and that one skilled in the art
would have been motivated to modify Cohen based on Pietrek because the
portions of Pietrek cited by the Examiner discuss diagnosing system failures
using heuristics, while Cohen does not. Final Act. 3 (cting Pietrek ¶¶ 1, 3).
Still further, we note that Appellant’s argument is based on the
incorrect premise that the Examiner proposes modifying Pietrek based on
Cohen. See Appeal Br. 11 (“Pietrek, without any modification, already
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

11
provides the benefit asserted to be provided by the proposed modification
(i.e., “diagnose system failures”). Therefore, because this benefit is already
present in Pietrek, the provided rationale fails to properly establish why the
proposed modification of Pietrek would have been obvious.”) (emphasis
omitted). That is, Appellant’s premise is incorrect because the Examiner,
rather than modifying Pietrek based on the teachings of Cohen, instead
proposes modifying Cohen based on the teachings of Pietrek. See Final
Act. 4 (“Cohen, modified by Pietrek”). Accordingly, we determine that
Appellant’s argument challenging the motivation to combine is unpersuasive
for failing to address the Examiner’s stated reasoning.
Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We, therefore, sustain4 the
Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the rejection of claims 2, 4–9,
11–16, and 18–23, which Appellant does not argue separately or only
nominally argues separately. Appeal Br. 6, 12.

4 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
claim 1 meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) to particularly point
out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Claim 1 first recites “comparing, by the computing device, the first set of
atoms to a second set of atoms.” Claim 1 then recites “automatically
identifying, by the computing device, a difference between the first set of
atoms and the second set of atoms based on a comparison of the first set of
atoms and the second set of atoms.” The Examiner should determine if it is
clear whether “a comparison” refers back to the “comparing” recited in
claim 1 or whether “a comparison” recites another “comparison,” different
than that previously recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2020-003731
Application 15/033,200

12
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–9,
11–16,
18–23
103 Cohen, Pietrek 1, 2, 4–9,
11–16,
18–23

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED