Splunk Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2019005314 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 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.
14/611,227 01/31/2015 Clint Sharp SPLK0011US 1168
138771 7590 12/31/2020
Artegis Law Group, LLP -SPLUNK, Inc.
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
WU, TONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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):
bkistler@artegislaw.com
jmatthews@artegislaw.com
sjohnson@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CLINT SHARP, JESSE MILLER, JASON SZETO, and
NIMA HADDADKAVEH
____________

Appeal 2019-005314
Application 14/611,227
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–30, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Splunk Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.

Appeal 2019-005314
Application 14/611,227
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “real time graphical display of parsed
data resulting from dynamically selected data processing operations.” Spec.
¶ 1.
In an embodiment, a search support system allows a
customer to browse data contained in files stored on an external
storage system/virtual index such as a Hadoop file system or
other file systems. The search support system allows a
customer to specify data processing tasks to be performed on
raw data retrieved from a file stored on a specified virtual
index. The customer specifies each data processing task and
the search support system performs each task as it is selected by
the customer on raw data retrieved from the file. The search
support system concurrently displays the results of each data
processing task in real time in a graphical user interface.
Spec. ¶ 22. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method, comprising:
retrieving raw data from a Hadoop file system;
causing display of a graphical user interface that displays
a plurality of selectable event break options indicating where a
break should occur in the raw data that designates an event
within the raw data, wherein the raw data comprises
unstructured data;
in response to a selected event break option, parsing the
raw data into a plurality of events using the selected event break
option and concurrently displaying the plurality of events as the
parsing occurs, each event in the plurality of events comprising
at least a portion of the parsed raw data;
storing the selected event break option as part of a late
binding schema, wherein the late binding schema is applied to
additional raw data retrieved from a data source in order to
parse the additional raw data into different events.

Appeal 2019-005314
Application 14/611,227
3
References and Rejections2

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
1–5, 7–8, 13–
15, 17–18,
23–24, 26-27
103 Smith (US 2011/0099500 A1, Apr. 28, 2011),
Tsirogiannis (US 2014/0279838 A1, Sept. 18,
2014), Fletcher (US 2013/0318536 A1, Nov. 28,
2013).
6, 9–12, 16,
19–22, 25,
28–30
103 Smith, Tsirogiannis, Fletcher,
Netz (US 2006/0020619 A1, Jan. 26, 2006)

ANALYSIS
Obviousness
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments, but such
arguments are unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our analysis
below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action
from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer.3
Appellant contends Smith and Fletcher do not collectively teach,
causing display of a graphical user interface that displays a
plurality of selectable event break options indicating where a
break should occur in the raw data that designates an event
within the raw data, . . . in response to a selected event break
option, parsing the raw data into a plurality of events using the
selected event break option,

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated July
2, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Jan. 22, 2019, (“Appeal Br.”);
(3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 2, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief
dated July 2, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
3 To the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Appeal 2019-005314
Application 14/611,227
4
as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 3–
5.
I
Appellant asserts Smith does not teach “raw data”:
in the technique of Smith, a user selects a start time and an end
time that defines a sub range of network events that will be
retrieved from a database. See id. at ¶ [0040], Abstract, and Fig.
1. . . . .

. . . none of the techniques disclosed by Smith implement any
type of raw data, much less selectable event break options
indicating where a break should occur in raw data,4 as explicitly
required by claim 1. Instead, each and every technique
disclosed by Smith retrieves network events, which contain
structured data.
Appeal Br. 10 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 3–5. Appellant also
cites Wikipedia for defining the term “raw data.” Reply Br. 4.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. It is well established that
during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification and should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, but
without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted);
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004). In this case, Appellant does not argue the Specification specifically
defines the term “raw data,” but points to an undated Wikipedia entry for the
definition. See Reply Br. 4. However, Appellant has not demonstrated the

4 Appellant’s assertion that Smith does not teach “selectable event break
options indicating where a break should occur” (Appeal Br. 10) is
unpersuasive, because Appellant does not provide any analysis to support
that assertion.
Appeal 2019-005314
Application 14/611,227
5
undated Wikipedia is authoritative and thus constitutes credible evidence,
especially since the meaning of a claim term “is the meaning that the term
would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of
the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted) (en banc) (emphasis added). As a result, Appellant has not shown
the argued definition of “raw data” constitutes the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term.
Further, a relevant technical dictionary defines “raw data” as
“[i]nformation that has been collected but not evaluated.” Microsoft
Computer Dictionary 439 (5th ed. 2002). That definition is also consistent
with the Specification’s description of the term. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 22–23,
62–64, 69, 72–73, 75, 90–91 (discussing raw data). As a result, the
Examiner reasonably interprets the claimed “raw data” to encompass
Smith’s network event data, which is information that has been collected but
not evaluated. See Ans. 4; Smith ¶¶ 35–36 (describing network event data
as information that has been collected but not evaluated); ¶ 38 (describing
evaluating network event data, such as “query, view, sort, or group the
events that are currently loaded into the event viewer”).
In addition, Appellant’s arguments about “structured” data (Appeal
Br. 10; Reply Br. 3) are unpersuasive, because Appellant does not
persuasively explain why raw data must exclude “structured” data. In any
event, Appellant has not established Smith’s network event data are
“structured” data, as the network event data can simply be stored in a
Appeal 2019-005314
Application 14/611,227
6
repository as unstructured data. See Smith ¶ 52 (“[a]n event database or
repository stores all events that have been received”).5
II
Appellant asserts “[m]odifying the system of Smith with the teachings
of Fletcher would render the system of Smith inoperable for its intended
purpose and/or fundamentally change the principle operation of the
reference.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because as discussed above,
Smith already teaches “raw data,” and there is no need to modify Smith with
Fletcher’s feature of raw data. Further, Appellant’s argument is
unpersuasive, as Appellant does not provide sufficient objective evidence to
support the assertion. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (“attorney argument [is] not the kind of factual evidence that is
required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”); Meitzner v. Mindick,
549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977) (“Argument of counsel cannot take the
place of evidence lacking in the record.”).
To the extent Appellant is arguing the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Smith with Fletcher’s feature of “wherein the late binding
schema is applied to additional raw data retrieved from a data source in
order to parse the additional raw data into different events” is improper, such
argument is unpersuasive, because they rely on the flawed assumption that
Smith does not teach “raw data” (Appeal Br. 8).

5 Because a repository stores Smith’s network event data, the network event
data are unprocessed and qualify as “raw data” even under Appellant’s
argued definition of raw data. See Reply Br. 4 (arguing—but failing to
provide adequate support to show—“raw data” means data that “has not
been subjected to processing”).
Appeal 2019-005314
Application 14/611,227
7
Further, Appellant’s argument that the system is rendered “inoperable
for its intended purpose” is a “teach away” argument. In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (The court concluded that in effect, “French
teaches away from the board’s proposed modification” because “if the
French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable
for its intended purpose”). The Federal Circuit has held “[a] reference may
be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed.Cir.1994)). Appellant’s
teaching away argument is unpersuasive because Appellant fails to provide
adequate analysis under the case law. Appellant fails to assert—let alone
show—one skilled in the art “would be discouraged from following the path
set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the applicant.” Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990.
III

Appellant argues that as an alternative to modifying the teachings of
Smith with those of Fletcher, the Examiner finds the disputed limitation is
cumulatively taught by modifying the teachings of Fletcher with those of
Smith. Appeal Br. 12. In response, Appellant argues that the
system of Fletcher cannot be modified with the teachings of
Smith to meet the limitations of causing display of a graphical
user interface that displays a plurality of selectable event break
options indicating where a break should occur in the raw data
that designates an event within the raw data.
Appeal 2019-005314
Application 14/611,227
8
Id.; see also Reply Br. 5–6. Specifically, Appellant argues that Fletcher
cannot be modified to include Smith’s teachings because Smith does not
teach parsing “raw data.” See Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. As discussed above, Smith
already teaches “raw data.” Therefore, there is no need to modify Fletcher
to include Smith’s features in order to teach the disputed limitation. In any
event, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive, because they rely on the
flawed assumption that Smith does not teach “raw data.”
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–
30, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments about
those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–8,
13–15, 17–
18, 23–24,
26-27
103 Smith,
Tsirogiannis,
Fletcher
1–5, 7–8,
13–15, 17–
18, 23–24,
26-27

6, 9–12, 16,
19–22, 25,
28–30
103 Smith,
Tsirogiannis,
Fletcher,
Netz
6, 9–12, 16,
19–22, 25,
28–30

Overall
Outcome
1–30
Appeal 2019-005314
Application 14/611,227
9

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