Ex Parte Petersen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

13427694 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

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.
13/427,694 03/22/2012 Chris Petersen 50259-00015 1027
25231 7590 03/27/2017
MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP
8055 East Tufts Avenue
Suite 450
Denver, CO 80237
EXAMINER
KELLER, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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):
PTOMail @ mfblaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRIS PETERSEN and PHILLIP VILLELLA
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,6941
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
rejection of claims 1—8, 10-17, 20-23, and 26.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LogRhythm Inc. App.
Br. 1.
2 Claims 9, 18, 19, 24, and 25 have been cancelled. See App. Br. 18—21.
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,694
Invention
The claims are directed to processing computer logs to determine
whether the location of a host computer matches a particular location. Spec.
73, Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for use on one or more platforms of a data
system, comprising the steps of:
receiving, at a processing engine, log messages generated
by one or more monitored platforms of a data system;
obtaining, from a received log message, at least one of an
origin host identifier associated with an origin host component
responsible for initiating an occurrence on the data system and
an impacted host identifier associated with an impacted host
component that is affected by an occurrence on the data system;
determining, using the origin host and/or impacted host
identifier, a respective first and/or second geographic location
where the origin and/or impacted host component physically
resides;
assigning the first and/or second geographic location to the
origin and/or impacted host identifier of the log message,
respectively; and
processing the log message using at least one processing
rule, wherein the at least one processing rule is operable to
identify when the assigned first and/or second geographic
location of the received log message matches or does not match
at least one particular geographic location, and wherein the at
least one particular geographic location is at least one of a
particular hemisphere, continent, country, state or city.
2
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,694
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Goodman US 2007/0039038 A1 Feb. 15,2007
Villella US 2007/0283194 A1 Dec. 6, 2007
Khan US 2008/0101552 A1 May 1,2008
Suryanarayana US 2009/0248883 A1 Oct. 1,2009
Judge US 7,693,947 B2 Apr. 6, 2010
Xu US 2012/0023550 A1 Jan. 26, 2012
McConnell US 8,631,493 B2 Jan. 14, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—8, 10-17, 20—23, and 263 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Non-Final Act. 3^4.
Claims 1—7, 10, 20-23, and 264 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Villella, McConnell, Xu, and Goodman.
Id. at 5—19.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Villella, McConnell, Xu, Goodman, and Khan. Id. at 19-
20.
Claims 11—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Villella, McConnell, Xu, Goodman, and Suryanarayana.
Id. at 20—24.
3 The Examiner also rejects claims 24 and 25; however, claims 24 and 25
have been cancelled. Amendment (filed Oct. 13, 2015). We consider this
harmless error.
4 The Examiner also rejects claims 24 and 25; however, claims 24 and 25
have been cancelled. Amendment (filed Oct. 13, 2015). We consider this
harmless error.
3
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,694
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Villella, McConnell, Xu, Goodman, and Judge. Id. at 25—
27.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants’ argument that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants’ arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 2—27) and the findings and the reasons
set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2-46). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings
and argument for emphasis as follows.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection of Claims 1—8, 10—17, 20—23, 26
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in concluding the invention as
recited in independent claims 1, 23, and 26 is directed to non-statutory
subject matter. App. Br. 4—9; Reply Br. 2—\. We are not persuaded.
In Alice, the Supreme Court set forth an analytical “framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLSBanklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355
(2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.
Ct. 1289, 1296—97 (2012)). The first step in the analysis is to “determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea
and if so, the next step considers the elements of the claims “i ndividually
and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional
4
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,694
elements that ‘“transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). Thus, the
second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’— i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself.’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294)).
Initially, claims 1 and 26 recite a method for reviewing a log to
determine a location match and claim 23 recites an apparatus which is used
to review a log to determine a location match. Ans. 3. Thus, the claims
appear to be directed to processes or machines — both statutory categories of
invention. Thus, we must determine whether those claims fall within the
exception for abstract ideas.
Next, turning to the first part of the Mayo/Alice framework, we agree
with the Examiner that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
“collecting and comparing known information.” Ans. 5. Appellants’
argument that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the
claims “intelligently determine and assign” physical locations (Reply Br. 2—
3 (citing Spec. 73)) is not persuasive. As the Examiner points out, humans
are able to perform data comparison and manipulation. Indeed, the
Specification teaches that “administrators and other users may be able to
manually (i.e., statically) assign one or more types of geolocation
information (e.g., city, state, etc.) to known hosts,” i.e., a human determines
that locations should be updated and associated with host data (Spec. 71
(emphasis added); see Spec. 10).
Turning to the second part of the Mayo/Alice framework, we further
agree with the Examiner that the independent claims contain no
5
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,694
limitations—either individually or when considered as an ordered
combination—that transform the claims into a patent-eligible application of
the abstract idea. Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 5. Appellants’ arguments that the
“present claims do not just recite ‘use a computer’” (Reply Br. 3—4) and that
the claims “include[] significantly more than” the abstract idea itself (App.
Br. 8—9) are unpersuasive. The claims recite primarily steps similar to “the
steps of consulting and updating an activity log” which the Federal Circuit
has found “represent insignificant ‘data-gathering steps,’ and thus add
nothing of practical significance to the underlying abstract idea.”
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2011)). Moreover, the concept of reviewing data and associating the data
with information are well-known conventional activities (see OIP
Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)). Specifically, we are not persuaded
that the claim requires more than a generic computer to perform the generic
computer functions of: obtaining data, determining information based on
that data, assigning that determined information, and processing that
determined information by comparing it for a match to a known piece of
data — well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously
known to the art (see, e.g., Spec. 1—2; Villella 3—4).
Furthermore, Appellants argue “the present claims satisfy the second
Mayo/Alice step” because the claims address a problem “necessarily rooted
in computer technology” by more accurately processing log messages based
on physical locations (i.e., the physical location of origin and/or impacted
host computers); as an example, Appellants provide “taking certain actions if
6
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,694
an origin host component in a log message resides in the United States and
taking different actions if an origin host component in a log message resides
in North Korea.” Reply Br. 3. We find these arguments unpersuasive
because the claims do not recite what “processing” or “certain actions” are
taken after processing using a processing rule to identify whether the
determined location matches a particular location. How administrators
might choose to apply the method recited in the claim (Reply Br. 4) does not
persuasively show the claim itself recites significantly more than the abstract
idea. Thus, we conclude that there are no meaningful limitations in the
claims that transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter.
Appellants have not argued that any of the limitations in the
dependent claims provide a meaningful limitation that transforms the claim
into a patent eligible subject matter either. Accordingly, Appellants have not
persuaded us claims 1—8, 10-17, 20—23, and 26 are directed to statutory
subject matter. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—8, 10—17,
20—23, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as not being directed to statutory
subject matter.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 23, and 26
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Villella, McConnell, Xu and Goodman teaches
the at least one processing rule is operable to identify when the
assigned first and/or second geographic location of the received
log message matches or does not match at least one particular
geographic location, and wherein the at least one particular
geographic location is at least one of a particular hemisphere,
continent, country, state or city,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 23 and 26. App. Br. 9—
14; Reply Br. 4—7. Specifically, Appellants argue Goodman detects a
7
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,694
phishing attack “when an IP (Internet protocol) address corresponding to the
domain does not match the country where the domain is located,” but
“Appellants] do[] not understand, nor has the Examiner explained, how an
IP address could match or not match a country.” App. Br. 11—12 (citing
Goodman | 59) (emphasis omitted). Appellants further argue the
combination “determin[es] whether the IP address of the computer/network
point. . . does not match a country where the computer/network point is
located” instead of “determining whether the physical location retrieved
from the location database record . . . matches or does not match a particular
country, city, state, etc. as required” by the claims. App. Br. 12; Reply Br.
6. Additionally, Appellants argue the combination “would actually increase
the vulnerability of the Xu system to wormhole attacks” and “increase the
number of false positives.” Reply Br. 6—7.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Villella
teaches reviewing logs to obtain “source [computer] IP addresses . . . and
destination [computer] IP addresses.” Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Villella
56, 58). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, McConnell teaches
that IP addresses “may be used to identify the physical location ... for the
identified network point or computer,” and further “stor[es] geographic
location information for the [identified] computer.” Id. at 6 (citing
McConnell 6:53—7:9, Figs. 6—7). The Examiner modifies Villella in light of
McConnell to identify and store the physical locations of Villella’s source
computer and destination computer. Id. at 6—7.
Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Xu teaches a
geographic leash which determines whether “the destination node for a
packet is within a certain distance from the source node.” Non-Final Act. 7
8
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,694
(citing Xu 115); Ans. 10-11. The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
Goodman teaches detecting an attack “when an IP (Internet protocol)
address corresponding to the domain does not match the country where the
domain is located.” Non-Final Act. 8 (citing Goodman 159). The Examiner
combines Villella, McConnell, Xu, and Goodman to “set the geographic
location to a specific country” and to “specifically detect/block
communication from specific countries,” i.e., to determine whether the
source or destination computer is located in a particular country. Ans. 12—
13.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because those arguments
attack the references individually while the Examiner’s rejection is based on
a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(citation omitted). Appellants’ argument that “Appellants] do[] not
understand” how Goodman matches an IP address with a country (App. Br.
12) does not address the Examiner’s combination of Xu and Goodman. The
Examiner relies on Xu to identify whether a computer’s location is within,
i.e., matches, a particular location. Ans. 10—11. The Examiner modifies Xu
with Goodman, which teaches that matched locations can be countries, in
order to identify whether a computer’s location is within, i.e., matches, a
particular country. Id. at 11, 13. Furthermore, Appellants’ argument that Xu
does not teach that locations are hemispheres, continents, countries, states,
or cities (Reply Br. 6 (citing Jan. 13, 2015 Amendment 8—9)) does not
address the Examiner’s reliance on Goodman’s teaching that locations can
be countries. Non-Final Act. 8; Ans. 11—12.
Furthermore, Appellants’ argument that the combination matches IP
addresses to countries, rather than matching determined locations to
9
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,694
countries (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6), does not address the Examiner’s
combination. Specifically, Appellants’ argument inappropriately requires
the bodily incorporation of Goodman’s IP matching features. However, the
Examiner relies on Villella and McConnell to teach the determination of a
computer’s location; that determined location is then matched to a country
based on Goodman’s teachings (Non-Final Act. 6, 8; Ans. 13).
Additionally, the “vulnerabilities” and “false positives” in the
combination alleged by Appellants are not responsive to the Examiner’s
rejection over the combination of Villella, McConnell, Xu, and Goodman.
Reply Br. 6—7. Specifically, Appellants have not explained why those
criticisms are evidence that the combination fails to teach the disputed
limitations. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Villella, McConnell, Xu, and Goodman teach
the at least one processing rule is operable to identity when the
assigned first and/or second geographic location of the received
log message matches or does not match at least one particular
geographic location, and wherein the at least one particular
geographic location is at least one of a particular hemisphere,
continent, country, state or city,
within the meaning of claims 1, 23, and 26.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections of Remaining Claims 2—8, 10—17, 20—22
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2—
8, 10—17, and 20-22. See App. Br. 12, 14—15. For the reasons set forth
above, therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these
claims. See In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We
conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require
applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for
individual claims to be treated separately.”). Accordingly, we sustain the
10
Appeal 2016-005413
Application 13/427,694
Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—8, 10—17, and 20-22. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8, 10—17, 20-23, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory matter is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—7, 10, 20-23, and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Villella, McConnell, Xu, and
Goodman is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Villella, McConnell, Xu, Goodman, and Khan is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Villella, McConnell, Xu, Goodman, and
Suryanarayana is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Villella, McConnell, Xu, Goodman, and
Judge is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11