Manikandan RajasekarDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 30, 201914631530 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/631,530 02/25/2015 Manikandan Rajasekar 000005-046300US 2285 58735 7590 07/30/2019 Fountainhead Law Group P.C. Chad R. Walsh 900 LAFAYETTE STREET SUITE 301 SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 EXAMINER HACKENBERG, RACHEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/30/2019 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): docketing@fountainheadlaw.com rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MANIKANDAN RAJASEKAR1 ____________________ Appeal 2018-005799 Application 14/631,530 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SAP AG. See App. Br. 2. Appeal 2018-005799 Application 14/631,530 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.2 THE INVENTION The claims are directed to managing log data generated by software applications. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. For a computing device, a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a processor of the computing device, a request from a log agent operating on a client device to transmit log data from the log agent to the computing device, the log agent configured to log or trace a vendor application running on the client device; establishing, by the processor of the computing device, a web-based connection with the log agent; receiving, by the processor of the computing device and over the web-based connection, the log data from the log agent, the log data generated during execution of the vendor application running on the client device; determining, by the processor of the computing device, a consumer preference setting associated with the client device from a plurality of consumer preference settings stored in a storage of the computing device; and storing, by the processor of the computing device, the log data in a log storage of the computing device according to the consumer preference setting. 2 We refer to the Specification, filed February 25, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed July 27, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed January 12, 2018 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 21, 2018 (“Ans.”), and Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed May 18, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2018-005799 Application 14/631,530 3 REFERENCES The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: McLachlan US 2012/0233547 Al Sept. 13, 2012 Naslund et al. Kumarasamy et al. US 2012/0240240 A1 US 2013/0227352 A1 Sept. 20, 2012 Aug. 29, 2013 Ahn et al. US 9,645,891 B2 May 9, 2017 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12, 13, 15–17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumarasamy and Naslund. Final Act. 2–39. Claims 4, 11, 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumarasamy, Naslund, and McLachlan. Final Act. 39– 48. Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumarasamy, Naslund, and Ahn. Final Act. 48–52. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s conclusions as to the rejection of the claims. In particular, the Examiner’s application of Kumarasamy to the claim limitations is inconsistent and, accordingly improper. Appellants argue: [T]he Answer states that the computing device recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 is being interpreted as the client computing devices Appeal 2018-005799 Application 14/631,530 4 of Kumarasamy. However, the Answer and the Final Office Action (hereinafter “Final Office Action“), mailed July 27 2017, have interpreted, and continue to interpret, the storage manager of Kumarasamy as the computing device/system recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. See Final Office Action, pp. 3-5; Answer, pp. 3-5. Even the Answer’s conclusion here that “[t]he log rules are created from a plurality of consumer preference settings via the storage manager” relies on the interpretation that the storage manager is the computing device/system. So if that is indeed the case, then the rejection of limitations that relied on this interpretation is improper because the client computing devices of Kumarasamy do not perform those limitations. Nevertheless, the Answer cannot selectively rely on the storage manager as performing some claimed limitations while relying on a client computing device, which is separate and distinct from the storage manager, as performing other claimed limitations because the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations as being performed by a single computing device/system. For at least this reason, the cited references do not disclose the independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Reply Br. 5. We agree the Examiner’s rejection is fatally inconsistent for the following reasons. In connection with the limitation of receiving, by a processor of the computing device, a request from a log agent operating on a client device to transmit log data from the log agent to the computing device, the Examiner finds: Kumarasamy teaches that the log agent running on the client device notifies the storage manager when an event/disruption occurs. This notification is a request to transmit log data from the computing device to the storage manager for analysis. The log monitor can respond to a detected threat by contacting the storage manager when an event occurs. This is a request for analysis of logs to be transmitted to the storage manager for analysis. The response/notification is equated to sending a request to the storage manager. The response can include the log Appeal 2018-005799 Application 14/631,530 5 data or (as shown in paragraph [0024] . . . ) notify the storage manager then send the log data. Ans. 3–4. Thus, in connection with the receiving limitation and in response to Appellant’s contention A, we agree with Appellant the Examiner “interpret[s] the storage manager 140 of Kumarasamy as the computing device/system recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.” App. Br. 10–11, Reply Br. 5. Conversely, in connection with the limitation of determining, by the processor of the computing device, a consumer preference setting associated with the client device from a plurality of consumer preference settings stored in a storage of the computing device and in response to Appellant’s Contention C (App. Br. 12–13), the Examiner instead equates the claimed “computing device . . . to the client computing device[s 102] shown in the figures of Kumarasamy.” Ans. 7. However, under such a mapping we are unable to ascertain what structure of Kumarasamy is relied upon for teaching the recited client device if not client computing device(s) 102. In particular, the Examiner improperly relies on Kumarasamy’s client computing devices 102 for teaching both the computing and client devices of claim 1. Such a mapping is inconsistent with the language of the claim requiring, for example, “receiving, by . . . the computing device a request from . . . a client device . . . to the computing device” or “receiving, by . . . the computing device . . . log data generated during execution of the vendor application running on the client device.” Claim 1. We interpret the recited computing and client devices to be distinct elements capable of transmitting and receiving data therebetween and, therefore, not taught or suggested by a single prior art structure (i.e., Kumarasamy’s client computing devices 102). Appeal 2018-005799 Application 14/631,530 6 Because the Examiner has not identified, and we are unable to ascertain, a teaching of recited client device, the rejection of claim 1 is improper. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and, for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 8, 11, and 15, which include substantially the same limitation, or the rejections of dependent claims 2–7, 9, 10, 12–14, and 16–20, which stand with their respective base claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation