Manikandan Rajasekar

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2019

14631530 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2019)

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