SPLUNK, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 14, 2020

15582670 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2020)

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.
15/582,670 04/29/2017 R. David CARASSO SP0020.04US.C3/275586 9485
128058 7590 04/14/2020
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(Splunk Inc.)
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108
EXAMINER
UDDIN, MOHAMMED R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2020 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):
IPDocket@shb.com
Patentofficecorrespondence@splunk.com
docket.shb@clarivate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte R. DAVID CARASSO, MICAH JAMES DELFINO, and
JOHNVEY HWANG
Appeal 2019-001049
Application 15/582,670
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–30, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Splunk Inc.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-001049
Application 15/582,670
2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to the analysis of machine-generated data sets,
and extraction from such data sets. Spec. ¶¶ 1–2, 85–86. Claims 1, 13, and
25 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and the
subject matter in dispute, and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving raw machine data;
generating, using one or more processors, a set of events,
wherein each event in the set of events includes a portion of the raw
machine data;
associating a time with each event in the set of events, the time
for each event extracted from the raw machine data included in that
event;
storing the set of events in a data store such that they are
searchable at least by their associated times;
causing display of an extraction rule, wherein the extraction
rule specifies how to extract a value for a field from raw machine data
included in an event;
causing display of a subset of events of the set of events;
visually emphasizing in the displayed subset of events a value
for the field that would be extracted from each of the events in the
subset of events by applying the extraction rule;
receiving input indicating that the emphasized value in a given
event in the subset of events should not be the value extracted for the
field for the given event;
based on the input indicating that the emphasized value should
not be the value for the field for the given event, automatically
modifying the extraction rule so that it would extract a different value
as a value for the field for the given event when applied to the given
event; and
modifying the displayed given event to visually emphasize the
different value for the field for the given event.
Appeal 2019-001049
Application 15/582,670
3
Appeal Br. 33 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).
References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Petersen et al.
(“Petersen”)
US 2012/0246303 A1 Sept. 27, 2012
DeStefano et al.
(“DeStefano”)
US 2005/0114707 A1 May 26, 2005

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Final Act. 2.
Claims 1–30 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting over claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,682,906. Final Act. 6–10.
Claims 1–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over DeStefano and Petersen. Final Act. 10–24.2
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). On the record before us, Appellant has not persuaded us
of error regarding the indefiniteness and nonstatutory double patenting
rejections. As to those rejections, we adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth in the rejections and in the Examiner’s Answer, and we

2 The Examiner also rejected claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
constituting ineligible subject matter, but withdrew the rejection in the
Answer. Final Act. 3–6; Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-001049
Application 15/582,670
4
provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. Appellant has,
however, persuaded us of error regarding the obviousness rejection, for the
reasons set forth below.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Appellant does not argue the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of
claims 8 and 20. Final Act. 2; Ans. 10 (maintaining the rejection).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain that rejection.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection
Appellant does not argue the Examiner’s nonstatutory double
patenting rejection of claims 1–30, nor does Appellant identify any filing of
a terminal disclaimer. Final Act. 6–10; Ans. 10 (maintaining the rejection).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain that rejection.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests “visually emphasizing in the displayed subset of events a value for
the field that would be extracted from each of the events in the subset of
events by applying the extraction rule,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br.
23–26 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 2–5. Appellant contends that Petersen
teaches emphasizing events by displaying them, not emphasizing a value for
the field that would be extracted. Reply Br. 3. We agree.
The Examiner finds Petersen teaches “interface(s) which visually
display the desired events to select[,] to get the user desired need.” Ans. 5
(citing Petersen Figs. 11, 26–64, Abstract). As Appellant argues, however,
the disputed claim limitation requires both a “displayed subset of events”
and “visually emphasizing . . . a value for the field that would be extracted,”
not merely displaying events for selection (of events). Reply Br. 3. The
Appeal 2019-001049
Application 15/582,670
5
Examiner does not explain how Petersen’s display of events in an interface
also teaches visually emphasizing in the displayed subset of events “a value
for the field that would be extracted,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner further finds that Petersen teaches “parsing log data” to
enable search for a user such as “Trent Heisler.” Ans. 6 (citing Petersen Fig.
23, ¶¶ 120, 191). As Appellant argues, however, the ability to perform a
search is not the same as visually emphasizing “in the displayed subset of
events” a “value for the field that would be extracted.” Reply Br. 3–4.
Similarly, although the Examiner also relies on DeStefano in the Answer as
teaching the disputed limitation (a departure from the Examiner’s reasoning
in the Final Action), we cannot discern sufficient support in this record for
the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner cites DeStefano’s disclosure of “log
data” in tables at paragraphs 25 and 26. Ans. 7–8. The Examiner does not
explain, however, how merely displaying log data teaches (alone or in
combination with Petersen) visually emphasizing “in the displayed events”
any value, let alone a value that would be extracted pursuant to the
conditions recited in claim 1.
We, therefore, are persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we are persuaded of
error regarding the same rejection of remaining independent claims 13 and
25, which recite limitations commensurate in scope with the disputed
limitation above. For the same reasons, we are also persuaded of error
regarding the rejection of the remaining claims, all of which are dependent.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1–30.
Appeal 2019-001049
Application 15/582,670
6
SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 20 112(b) Indefiniteness 8, 20
1–30 Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
1–30
1–30 103 DeStefano,
Petersen
1–30
Overall
Outcome
1–30
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–30.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED