Ex Parte Takata et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2014

11905433 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OSAMU TAKATA, TADASHI KAJI,
TAKAHIRO FUJISHIRO, KAZUYOSHI HOSHINO,
and YUKO SAWAI
____________

Appeal 2012-003858
Application 11/905,433
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before: BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-003858
Application 11/905,433

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 7-10.1 We
have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally “to a system which manages a
communication log of communication performed between a communication
source apparatus and a communication destination apparatus.” Spec. 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added, is
further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A communication log management system for a
network which is composed of a plurality of network domains
including a first network domain and a second network domain,
comprising:
[1] a communication source apparatus;
[2] a communication destination apparatus;
[3] a first session management server which manages a
communication performed within the first network domain;
[4] a first log management server which manages a
communication performed within the first network domain,
[5] a second session management server which manages
a communication performed within the second network domain;
and
[6] a second log management server which manages a
communication performed within the second network domain,
[7] the communication source apparatus, the first session
management server, and the first log management server
belonging to the first network domain,
[8] the communication destination apparatus, the second
session management server, and the second log management
server belonging to the second network domain, wherein:
[9] the first session management server of the first

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed July 15, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 18,
2011).
Appeal 2012-003858
Application 11/905,433

3
network domain to which the communication source apparatus
belongs and the second session management server of the
second network domain to which the communication
destination apparatus belongs are each configured to:
[10] mediate at least one of processing performed at a
start of a communication and processing performed at an end of
the communication in a case where the communication is
performed between the communication source apparatus and
the communication destination apparatus;
[11] the first session management server is configured to
record a first session management log regarding the mediated at
least one of the processing performed at the start of the
communication and the processing performed at the end of the
communication, and transmit the recorded first session
management log to the first log management server;
[12] the second session management server is configured
to record a second session management log regarding the
mediated at least one of the processing performed at the start of
the communication and the processing performed at the end of
the communication, and transmit the recorded second session
management log to the second log management server;
[13] the communication source apparatus is configured to
create a communication source apparatus log regarding at least
one of the processing performed at the start, the processing
performed at the end, and processing performed during the
communication, and transmit the created communication source
apparatus log to the first log management server;
[14] the communication destination apparatus is
configured to create a communication destination apparatus log
regarding at least one of the processing performed at the start,
the processing performed at the end, and a processing
performed during the communication, and transmit the created
communication destination apparatus log to the second log
management server;
[15] the first log management server is configured to
receive the transmitted first session management log and the
transmitted communication source apparatus log, and manage
the logs;
Appeal 2012-003858
Application 11/905,433

4
[16] the second log management server is configured to
receive the second transmitted session management log and the
transmitted communication destination apparatus log, and
manage the logs; and
[17] any one of the first and second log management
servers is configured to:
[18] perform verification of consistency between the first
session management log which is managed by the first log
management server and the communication source apparatus
log, and the second session management log which is managed
by the second log management server and the communication
destination apparatus log, and
[19] determine whether or not the first session
management log, the communication source apparatus log, the
second session management log, and the communication
destination apparatus log are consistent with each other and
accurate, and if any inconsistency is present, extract portions
identifying the inconsistency.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hoshino (US 2005/0220039 A1, pub, Oct. 6, 2005) and
Szrek (US 6,477,251 B1, iss. Nov. 5, 2002);
claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hoshino, Szrek, and Yoda (US 2001/0014093 A1, pub.
Aug. 16, 2001).

We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-003858
Application 11/905,433

5
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 12
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Hoshino and Szrek discloses or suggests
any one of the first and second log management servers is
configured to:
perform verification of consistency between the first session
management log which is managed by the first log management
server and the communication source apparatus log, and the
second session management log which is managed by the
second log management server and the communication
destination apparatus log, and
determine whether or not the first session management log, the
communication source apparatus log, the second session
management log, and the communication destination apparatus
log are consistent with each other and accurate, and if any
inconsistency is present, extract portions identifying the
inconsistency[,]
as recited in limitations [17], [18], and [19] of independent claim 1. Br. 9.
Appellants assert that Szrek teaches using outcome and event logs for
verification of the outcome, but “does NOT teach analyzing whether the
logs are correct or the logs have not been subjected to tampering”
(emphasis original). Br. 10. However, claim 1 does not recite “analyzing
whether the logs are correct or the logs have not been subjected to
tampering;” it merely recites a server configured to “perform verification of
consistency between the [logs] . . . and if any inconsistency is present,
extract portions identifying the inconsistency.” See CollegeNet, Inc. v.

2 Appellants do not set forth additional assertions for claims 3, 9, and 10.
We choose independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appeal 2012-003858
Application 11/905,433

6
ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the
specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations
from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
Here, we agree with the Examiner that Szrek discloses verifying
consistency between logs maintained at different servers (col. 4, lines 26-
34), and if any inconsistency is present, sending a signal to an auditor or
validation system server (col. 6, lines 3-11), which corresponds to the recited
“extract” function (Ans. 21-22). Thus, we are not persuaded that the
combination of Hoshino and Szrek does not disclose a server configured to
“perform verification of consistency between [logs]” and “if any
inconsistency is present, extract portions identifying the inconsistency,” as
claim 1 requires.
We also are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that the
combination of Hoshino and Szrek discloses or suggests the limitations at
issue because “[t]he Examiner did not provide any specific reasons as to
why the description in column 5, lines 35-45 of Szrek can be interpreted that
first and second logs are compared, and if the logs are valid then payoff
granted.” Br. 10-11. While Appellants may be correct that column 5, lines
35-45 of Szrek, alone, does not disclose comparing a first log and a second
log, the Examiner does not rely solely on column 5, lines 35-45 of Szrek, but
also cites to Szrek at column 4, lines 26-30. See Ans. 9 and 21. There,
Szrek discloses:
[t]he audit server first verifies the digital signature of the logs
and then recreates the outcome based on the event logs and
compares the result to the outcome from the outcome log. If
the recreated outcome and the outcome from the outcome log
are identical, the audit server sends a signal to the processor of
Appeal 2012-003858
Application 11/905,433

7
the gaming machine that had the win indicating that payment
should be granted.
(Szrek col. 4, ll. 26-33). Thus, Szrek describes comparing logs and
determining validity. As such, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive to
show Examiner error.
For at least the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoshino and Szrek.
Claims 3, 9, and 10 fall with claim 1.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 7 and 8
Appellants do not present any argument for the separate patentability
of claims 7 and 8, except to assert that Yoda fails to cure the alleged
deficiencies of Hoshino and Szrek. Br. 11-12. Accordingly, for the reasons
outlined above, we sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoshino, Szrek, and Yoda.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, and 7-10 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh