SPLUNK INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2021

2019005791 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 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.
14/169,268 01/31/2014 R. David CARASSO SP0020.02US.C1/272020 1700
128058 7590 09/16/2021
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(Splunk Inc.)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BLVD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
EXAMINER
ELLIS, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2152
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2021 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):
patentofficecorrespondence@splunk.com
shbdocketing@shb.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 2019-005791
Application 14/169,268
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 31–53. Claims 1–30 have been cancelled. 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. 3.
Appeal 2019-005791
Application 14/169,268

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to providing real-time display of data field
values based on manual editing of extraction rules. Specifically, the
invention relates to identifying and extracting field values from data, such as
event records and corresponding statistics. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 22, Figs. 8A–C, 9A,
B.
Claims 31 and 53 are independent. Claim 31 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter in dispute, and is reproduced below:
31. 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;
for each event in the subset of displayed events,
emphasizing in the events a value for the field that would be
extracted by applying the extraction rule to that event;
receiving a user selection of the emphasized value in a
given event, the user selection indicating that the selected
emphasized value should not be the value for the field for the
given event;
based on the user selection, automatically generating a
Appeal 2019-005791
Application 14/169,268

3
new extraction rule that when applied to the given event, would
extract a different value for the field for the given event than the
selected emphasized value, and when applied to a second event
of the subset of displayed events, would extract a value for the
field that the user has previously indicated should be captured
for the second event by the extraction rule; and
modifying the displayed given event to emphasize the
different value for the field for the given event.
Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 31–48 and 53 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ward, Ivanov, and Yegnanarayanan. Final Act. 3.
Claims 49–52 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ward, Ivanov, Yegnanarayanan, and Ginter. Final Act. 12.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments that 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). For the reasons discussed below, Appellant has not
persuaded us of error. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth in the rejections and in the Examiner’s Answer. We provide the
Name Reference Date
Ginter et al. (“Ginter”) US 2005/0015624 A1 Jan. 20, 2005
Ivanov et al. (“Ivanov”) US 2007/0198565 A1 Aug. 23, 2007
Ward et al. (“Ward”) US 2010/0275128 A1 Oct. 28, 2010
Yegnanarayanan et al.
(“Yegnanarayanan”)
US 2013/0035961 A1 Feb. 7, 2013
Appeal 2019-005791
Application 14/169,268

4
following for highlighting and emphasis.
Rejection of Claims 31–48 and 53 under § 103(a)
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests “generating a new extraction rule that when applied to the given
event would extract a different value … for the field for the given event,” as
recited in claim 31. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 3, 6 (emphasis in original).
Appellant also argues that the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
or suggests “generating a new extraction rule that ...when applied to a
second event …would extract a value for the field …previously…captured
for the second event by the extraction rule,” as further recited in claim 31.
Reply Br. 4. We, however, are not persuaded of error.
As the Examiner finds, Ward as modified by Ivanov teaches
modification of an extraction rule by a user, but does not teach details about
selection of already extracted values, to remove the values from the
extraction rule. Final Act. 4–5. As the Examiner further finds, however,
Yegnanarayanan teaches this missing element. Ans. 4–5. Specifically,
paragraph 72 of Yegnanarayanan discloses “a user may delete a fact that was
extracted from a first portion of the narrative text, and the system may then
automatically delete one or more other instances of the same extracted fact
(or of similar extracted facts) from one or more other portions of the
narrative text.” Ans. 4. When such a deletion occurs “for one of the facts,”
this does not mean that “all of the facts are deleted,” and thus
Yegnanarayanan teaches or suggests that other facts “are still extracted.”
Ans. 4; Yegnanarayanan ¶ 66. Accordingly, as the Examiner finds
Yegnanarayanan teaches or suggests deletion of an extracted value, and
Appeal 2019-005791
Application 14/169,268

5
applying the same deletion to other portions, which “reads on a newly
generated extraction rule.” Ans. 5.
In other words, the phrase “other portions” in Yegnanarayanan may
apply to other text and also to other portions of the same text.
Yegnanarayanan ¶ 159. Other portions of the text may share the same
features (or a suitable subset of those features) as the text portion
corresponding to the fact identified by the user. Id. Moreover, claim 31
does not limit the phrase “different value” to be a value “for the field for the
given event” or to be from the selected emphasized value. In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claim terms given
their “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Ivanov and Yegnanarayanan with Ward teaches or suggests
“generating a new extraction rule that when applied to the given event,
would extract a different value for the field for the given event,” as recited in
claim 31.
We next address Appellant’s second argument (“new extraction rule”
to a second event). As the Examiner finds, Yegnanarayanan teaches that its
fact extraction component may be implemented in any suitable way.
Yegnanarayanan ¶ 72. Final Act. 6. A user may select a fact that was
already extracted from a first portion of the narrative text, and may specify a
modification that should be made to the extracted fact and associated with
the text portion. Id. at ¶ 71. Final Act. 5. When the user identifies a fact
that should be associated with one portion of the text narrative (e.g., by
adding a fact, modifying a fact, or selecting among alternative options for a
Appeal 2019-005791
Application 14/169,268

6
fact corresponding to that portion of the text narrative), the system may
automatically identify features in the corresponding portion of the text to
associate with the user’s identified fact. Id ¶ 159. Final Act. 14. In
addition, Yegnanarayanan teaches (at ¶ 159) propagating (i.e., a second
event) user modification or deletion to fact extraction, and Ivanov teaches (at
¶ 72) repetitive testing is required to reach desired data set in accordance
with a regular expression or extraction rule. Final Act. 5, 14.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Yegnanarayanan and Ivanov teach or suggest selection of already-extracted
values to remove the values from the extraction rule. Thus, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of references
teaches or suggests “generating a new extraction rule that ... when applied to
a second event of the subset of displayed events, would extract a value for
the field that the user has previously indicated should be captured for the
second event by the extraction rule.”
Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. at 4–7) further do not persuade us
of error because Appellant’s arguments focus on the references individually
rather than the combination cited by the Examiner. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner finds,
“Yegnanarayanan was used to remedy the deficiency of Ward in view of
Ivanov with regard to deletion of extracted text.” Ans. 5.
Also, we discern no error in the Examiner’s rationale in combining the
references. All three references (like Appellant’s claimed invention) are
directed to extraction of content from text, and the Examiner identifies
suggestions to combine within the references themselves. Final Act. 5, 6
(citing Ivanov ¶ 11, Yegnanarayanan ¶ 72); see DyStar Textilfarben GmbH
Appeal 2019-005791
Application 14/169,268

7
& Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (rationale to combine references also may be found within the
references themselves).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error as to claim 31, as well as
claims 32–39, 42–48, and 53 (all of which were not argued separately).
Appellant further argues dependent claims 40 and 41 separately.
Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner
erred in finding the prior art teaches or suggests “identifying a set of unique
field values that would be extracted for the field by applying the extraction
rule to events in the set of events; and displaying one or more unique field
values in the set of unique field values.” Reply Br. 8. We are not persuaded
of error as to these claims.
As the Examiner finds, Ward discloses (at ¶ 134, Fig. 15) regular
expression, such as, probability statistics to extract specific content, as field
values. Final Act. 9; Ans. 6; Ward ¶¶ 55, 60. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Ward also teaches display of identifying metrics, such as statistics of
content for a chosen period. Ward ¶ 60, Fig. 4. Ward teaches determining
percentages of available resources, which reads on identified displayed
unique values. Id. The Examiner’s finding is further supported by the
Appellant’s Specification, which similarly describes the claimed “unique
extracted values” as statistics from event records, such as names. Spec.
¶ 22. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 40 and 41.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 31–48 and 53.
Appeal 2019-005791
Application 14/169,268

8
Rejection of Claims 49–52 under § 103(a)
Claims 49–52 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 31.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 49–52 for the same
reasons as claim 31. For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded
of error. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 49–52.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 31–53.
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).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
31–48, 53 103(a) Ward, Ivanov,
Yegnanarayanan
31–48, 53
49–52 103(a) Ward, Ivanov,
Yegnanarayanan,
Ginter
49–52
Overall
Outcome
31–53

AFFIRMED