KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 4, 2021

2020004095 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 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.
14/898,856 12/16/2015 SEBASTIAN EMILIAN BANESCU 2013P00293WOUS 8153
24737 7590 10/04/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
KENNEDY, LESA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte SEBASTIAN EMILIAN BANESCU, MILAN PETKOVIC,
and MINA DENG

Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
Technology Center 2400

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 11, and 12.2, 3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 6–10, 13, and 20–22 have been withdrawn from consideration, and
claims 14–19 have been cancelled. (See Second Advisory Act. (entering
After-Final Amendment dated October 25, 2019); First Advisory Act.
(entering After-Final Amendment dated May 13, 2019); Final Act. 1.)
3 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Final Rejection mailed March 27,
2019 (“Final Act.”), the Advisory Action mailed June 17, 2019 (“First
Advisory Act.”), the Advisory Action mailed November 7, 2019 (“Second
Advisory Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed November 1, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”),
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
2
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The present invention relates to a logging device and method that
“produce for an activity executed on the logging device an associated log
entry . . . [that] comprises a data entry and a chaining value,” the chaining
value being computed “so that: if the activity is an initiating activity, the
chaining value is set to an initiating chaining value, and if the activity is a
dependent activity, the chaining value is computed from log entries
associated with the activities on which the dependent activity depends.”
Spec. 1:2–5, 2:8–12, 2:17–22. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
is reproduced below.
1. A logging device configured to collaborate with at least
one other logging device, the logging device and the at least one
other logging device together forming a set of logging devices
configured to communicate among each other over a
communications network,
the logging device comprising a log manager and a log
buffer,
wherein the log manager:
produces, for an activity executed on the logging
device, an associated log entry and writes the log entry to
the log buffer, wherein the log entry comprises a data
entry and a hash chaining value, the data entry
comprising information on the activity to which the log
entry is associated, the activity being initiating or
dependent, a dependent activity being dependent upon at
least one previous activity,
obtains dependency information for the activity,
the dependency information indicating whether the
activity is initiating or dependent, and in case the activity

the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 18, 2020 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief
filed May 13, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
3
is dependent, log entries associated with the activities on
which the dependent activity depends,
computes the hash chaining value for a log entry
associated with an activity so that:
if the activity is an initiating activity, the hash
chaining value is set to an initiating chaining value,
and
if the activity is a dependent activity, the hash
chaining value is computed as a hash value that is
based on log entries associated with each of the
activities on which the dependent activity depends,
wherein the hash chaining values in the log buffer enable
a determination of an order in which the activities occurred.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hood US 2006/0020578 A1 Jan. 26, 2006
Savitzky et al. US 2008/0201580 A1 Aug. 21, 2008
Fischer US 2009/0164979 A1 June 25, 2009
Katariya et al. US 2010/0223446 A1 Sept. 2, 2010
Rash et al. US 2014/0215007 A1 July 31, 2014

REJECTIONS4
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Katariya in view of Savitzky. Final Act. 7–10.

4 Claims 1–5 and 11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter, and claim 11 was rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite. Final Act. 5–6. However, these
rejections were withdrawn in the Examiner’s First Advisory Action, and are
no longer pending on appeal. First Advisory Act. 2. In addition, the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 16, 17, and 19 (based on Katariya and
Savitzky) and claim 18 (based on Katariya, Savitzky, and Meier (US
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
4
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Katariya, Savitzky, and Fischer. Final Act. 13–14.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Katariya, Savitzky, and Hood. Final Act. 14.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Katariya, Savitzky, and Rash. Final Act. 14–15.
OPINION
Rejections of Claims 1–5 and 11
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant argues Katariya and
Savitzky, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest a log manager
that “computes the hash chaining value for a log entry associated with an
activity” so that “if the activity is a dependent activity, the hash chaining
value is computed as a hash value that is based on log entries associated with
each of the activities on which the dependent activity depends,” as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 10–16; Reply Br. 2–7. Appellant acknowledges
Katariya’s disclosure of “correlation identifiers [(IDs)] employed in addition
to activity identifiers to uniquely identify each interaction between the
activities” but argues that
Katariya does not disclose different correlation IDs depending
upon whether the activity is an initiating activity or a dependent
activity, and Katariya does not disclose that the value of the
correlation ID is “based on log entries associated with each of
the activities on which the dependent activity depends.”
. . .
Katariya’s initiating (“sending”) device is independent of the
dependent (“receiving”) device, and thus the sending device
cannot reasonably be said to create the correlation ID based on
activities at the receiving device.

2013/0326198 A1)) (see Final Act. 7, 15) are moot because claims 16–19
have been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
5
. . .
the device (sender) that creates Katariya’s correlation ID cannot
compute a value that is based on log entries associated with each
of the activities on which the dependent activity (receiving)
depends.
Appeal Br. 8, 11–12 (citing Katariya ¶ 25); see also Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant further submits that claim 1 requires the dependent activity’s
chaining value to be based on multiple log entries (associated with each of
the activities on which the dependent activity depends), and “there is no
support in the Answer, or in Katariya, for the assertion that Katariya’s
correlation identifier is based on the log entries [plural] associated with each
of the activities on which the dependent activity depends.” Reply Br. 4.
With regard to Savitzky, Appellant argues “applying Savitzky to produce a
hash of the Katariya’s correlation identifier will merely produce a value that
is a hash of Katariya’s correlation identifier,” which is still “not based on
prior activities” and “not . . . based on log entries associated with each of
the activities on which the dependent activity depends, as specifically
taught and claimed by the applicants.” Appeal Br. 13–14; see also Reply Br.
5–6.
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 7–9; Ans. 3–6. Particularly, we agree
with the Examiner that “Katariya discloses that a dependent activity
[(activity B, receiving data)] is given a correlation identifier (chaining value)
that is based on the prior log entry of the initiating activity [(activity A,
sending data to activity B)] upon which it depends,” and Savitzky’s “running
hash” of a most recent entry teaches a “hash chaining value . . . computed as
a hash value that is based on log entries associated with each of the activities
on which the dependent activity depends.” Ans. 4–6 (citing Katariya ¶¶ 54,
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
6
63, 90, 93, 98, Fig. 9; Savitzky ¶ 103); Final Act. 8–9 (citing Savitzky ¶ 26).
Appellant’s argument that Katariya is deficient because “Katariya does not
disclose different correlation IDs depending upon whether the activity is an
initiating activity or a dependent activity” (see Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis
added)) is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 recites that
an initiating activity’s hash chaining value is set to an initiating chaining
value, while a dependent activity’s hash chaining value is computed as a
hash value based on log entries associated with each of the activities on
which the dependent activity depends. The language of claim 1 does not
preclude the possibility that the hash chaining values of a dependent activity
and of an initiating activity (on which the dependent activity depends) have
the same value. See Ans. 3–4, 6.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the correlation
ID logged for a data-receiving activity in Katariya is not based on a log entry
associated with an activity on which the data-receiving activity depends.
See Appeal Br. 12–13 (arguing that “the device (sender) that creates
Katariya’s correlation ID cannot compute a value that is based on log entries
associated with each of the activities on which the dependent activity
(receiving) depends”); Reply Br. 3–4, 6. Katariya explains that information
identifying a “Send” event of an activity (A) is logged with a unique
correlation ID, and a corresponding “Receive” event of an activity B
(receiving, from activity A, data together with the correlation ID) is logged
by the same correlation ID. See Katariya ¶¶ 88–90, 93, 98; Ans. 3–4 (citing
Katariya ¶¶ 23–24, 54, 63, 76, 88–90, 93, 98, Fig. 9). We agree with the
Examiner that Katariya’s data-receiving activity B is “a dependent activity
being dependent upon at least one previous activity” (as recited in claim 1).
Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 8. A data-receiving activity (like Katariya’s activity B
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
7
that uses data sent by another activity) is commensurate with the term
“dependent activity” as claimed and with the broad description of
“dependent activity” in Appellant’s Specification. For example, Appellant’s
Specification describes a “dependent activity” as one that “is dependent
upon at least one previous activity of the same process” where
the process may be a data processing process, in which data is
required and produced in an activity. A process may also define
a sequence of messages that are required to be exchanged
between the logging devices. A process may define a series of
actions to be executed at devices of the set of devices, e.g., to
achieve a result, at least some of the actions in a process requiring
a previous execution of an action of the same process.

Spec. 7:3–9, 7:19–25.
We agree with the Examiner that Katariya’s correlation ID, by which
the “Receive” event of activity B is logged, teaches the claimed chaining
value that is associated with a dependent activity (B) and is based on a prior
log entry of an activity (data-sending activity A) upon which activity B
depends. Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 8; see Katariya ¶¶ 90, 98.
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s mapping of Katariya to claim 1
for an additional reason—that “there is no support in the Answer, or in
Katariya, for the assertion that Katariya’s correlation identifier is based on
the log entries [plural] associated with each of the activities on which the
dependent activity depends.” Reply Br. 4; see also Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for two reasons.
A first reason is that Katariya envisions the correlation ID (claimed
“chaining value”) designating log entries of an interaction (e.g., a data
exchange) that involves more than two activities. See Katariya ¶¶ 30 (“when
two or more activities interact, a correlation identifier may be generated to
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
8
be transferred between the interacting activities to uniquely identify the
interaction. An event associated with that interaction may be logged in each
of the activities, including the correlation identifier.”), 50 and 54 (“A change
in the space may be indicated by an event. In the contextual tracing model
according to some embodiments, such an event may represent creation of an
activity. . . . a correlation identifier uniquely identifiers[sic] this transfer of
data between the two or more spaces”), 86 (“the correlation identifier is
used to tie the communication between two or more activities that can result
in a state change for either the sending or receiving activity” (emphases
added)), 90, 98–99 (“even though process 800 [(in Fig. 8 illustrating a data
transfer process marked by a correlation ID)] is shown for two executing
activities defined as activities A and B, any number of activities may be
executing and interacting by, for example, exchanging data” (emphasis
added)); Ans. 3–4 (citing Katariya ¶¶ 54, 88–90, 93, 98); Final Act. 8 (citing
Katariya ¶ 30).
A second reason (as explained by the Examiner) is that Savitzky’s
“running hash” of a most recent entry (in a hash-connected chain of entries)
teaches a chaining value computed as a value based on plural log entries
associated with each of the activities on which a dependent activity (most
recent entry) depends, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5–6 (citing Savitzky ¶¶ 26,
103); Final Act. 9 (citing Savitzky ¶ 26).
Appellant argues, however, that the value of Savitzky’s running hash
is not based on log entries of related activities (i.e., activities on which the
dependent/most recent entry depends, as required by claim 1). Reply Br. 5–
6. Rather, Appellant argues, Savitzky’s running hash is based on hashes of
“unrelated” activities and is therefore “unrelated to log entries associated
with each of the activities on which the dependent activity at the requesting
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
9
device depends.” Id. (emphases added). Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive because Savitzky’s “current running hash is determined by the
content and sequence of all previous [log] entries” of which “each entry
depends on the entire sequence of preceding entries”—because “each entry
include[s] a hash of the previous entry” such that “[t]he entries and their
hashes form a chain.” See Savitzky ¶ 26; Ans. 5–6; Final Act. 9. Savitzky
also explains the “entries” may be associated with activities that are related
to/dependent on each other, such as document versioning operations
including “operations applied to a digital file, version history of a document.
. . . [or] operations [that] may include an indication of when a document was
printed, viewed, or other information was added to the document.” Savitzky
¶ 27; Final Act. 9; Ans. 5–6. We consider the skilled artisan, viewing this
teaching of Savitzky, would recognize that when Savitzky’s most recent
entry (the entry associated with the current running hash) specifies a current
version of a changing document, the preceding entries (in the hash-
connected chain of entries) that designate prior versions of that document
are entries associated with activities (prior document edits) on which the
dependent activity (the current/most-recent document edit) depends, as
required by claim 1.
Appellant insists that Savitzky is still deficient because it is different
from
[A]pplicants’ claimed invention . . . [in which] the hash chaining
value of [an] interaction is dependent upon the activities at each
of the devices, and not merely on a hash of an immediately prior
entry in the log of the interaction activity at the dependent
(‘receiving’) device’s log.
Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added). Appellant asserts that Savitzky’s hash
chaining process is merely “a conventional hash chaining process, wherein
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
10
the chaining value in a device’s activity log is based on the chaining value of
the immediately prior activity in the log of the device.” Id. (emphasis
added). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. As discussed supra,
Savitzky teaches that “the current running hash is determined by the content
and sequence of all previous entries” and “each entry depends on the entire
sequence of preceding entries.” See Savitzky ¶ 26 (emphases added); Ans.
5–6. We observe that Appellant’s own Specification discloses a
“sequential” chain of hash values in which a current chaining value is a hash
of an immediately prior entry. See Spec. 14:13–16, 14:17–23,5 and Figs. 2a
and 3a (showing activity A14 whose log entry 314 has a chaining value
H(312) that is the hash over log entry 312 of immediately preceding activity
A12, and activity A16 whose log entry 316 has a chaining value H(314) that
is the hash over log entry 314 of immediately preceding activity A14).
Thus, the chaining of log entries described in Appellant’s Specification is
similar to Savitzky’s linear sequence of hashed log entries. Final Act. 9;
Ans. 5–6; see Savitzky ¶ 26.
Finally, Appellant argues Savitzky is deficient because
when Savitzky refers to “all previous entries” [(in paragraph 26
describing “the current running hash . . . determined by the
content and sequence of all previous entries”)], Savitzky is
referring to “all previous entries in the log of the logging device”,
and not to “all previous activities in this log and each activity in
other logs associated with this activity”, as taught and claimed
by the applicants.

Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not supported by
corresponding language in claim 1. Claim 1 recites “if the activity is a

5 As amended by Appellant on January 8, 2019.
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
11
dependent activity, the hash chaining value is computed as a hash value that
is based on log entries associated with each of the activities on which the
dependent activity depends.” Claim 1 does not recite or require a dependent
activity’s hash chaining value to be computed based on “all previous
activities in this log” or based on “each activity in other logs associated with
this activity,” as Appellant argues. See Appeal Br. 15 (emphases added).
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2–5 and
11 argued for their dependency. Appeal Br. 16.
Rejection of Claim 12
Independent claim 12 recites:
determining the hash chaining value for a log entry
associated with an activity, wherein:
if the activity is an initiating activity, setting the
hash chaining value to an initiating chaining value, and
if the activity is a dependent activity, computing the
hash chaining value as a hash value that is based on the log
entries associated with each of the activities on which the
dependent activity depends.

Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
Appellant submits the same arguments for independent claim 12 as for
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 10, 12–14; Reply Br. 7. As discussed supra with
respect to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Katariya and Savitzky teaches hash chaining value computations for log
entries associated with activities so that (i) if the activity is an initiating
activity, a hash chaining value is set to an initiating chaining value, and (ii)
if the activity is a dependent activity, a hash chaining value is computed as a
hash value that is based on log entries associated with each of the activities
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
12
on which the dependent activity depends. Thus, for the same reasons as
those discussed with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 12.
We additionally note, independent claim 12 is a method claim (“A
logging method for a device collaborating with at least one other logging
device . . . the method comprising”) that recites the conditional step of
“computing the hash chaining value as a hash value that is based on the log
entries associated with each of the activities on which the dependent activity
depends” performed “if the activity is a dependent activity.” See Appeal Br.
20 (claim 12 (emphasis added)). Thus, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 12 covers a method in which the activity is not a
dependent activity but rather an initiating activity for which the step of
“setting the hash chaining value to an initiating chaining value” is
performed, and the step of “computing the hash chaining value as a hash
value that is based on the log entries associated with each of the activities on
which the dependent activity depends” is not performed. See id.; see also
Ans. 7; Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3–5
(PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (discussing construction of conditional
limitations in method claims). As a result, Appellant’s arguments regarding
computation of the hash chaining value “as a hash value that is based on log
entries associated with each of the activities on which the dependent activity
depends” (see Appeal Br. 10–16; Reply Br. 3–7) are, in fact, not
commensurate with the scope of claim 12 under its proper broadest
reasonable interpretation.
In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claim 12.
Appeal 2020-004095
Application 14/898,856
13
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 11, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 12 103 Katariya,
Savitzky
1, 2, 5, 12
3 103 Katariya,
Savitzky,
Fischer
3
4 103 Katariya,
Savitzky, Hood
4
11 103 Katariya,
Savitzky, Rash
11
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 11, 12

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