Page, Mike et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 4, 20202019001795 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2020) 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. 11/966,540 12/28/2007 Mike Page 0113-US-01 5305 83579 7590 06/04/2020 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Attn: Patent Docketing 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LOAN T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2020 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): patent.docketing@centurylink.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MIKE PAGE and JEFF COX Appeal 2019-001795 Application 11/966,540 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9–13, 15–20, and 22–27, which are all of the claims pending in the application. A telephonic hearing was held on May 14, 2020. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Level 3 Communications, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-001795 Application 11/966,540 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to techniques to “monitor back-up write events from the database servers on the network to a network back-up server and correct failed back-up attempts.” Spec. Abstract. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 9 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 9. A method on a computer of administering a plurality of database servers connected within a network comprising: requesting event log information from each of the plurality of database servers within the network, the database servers each comprising one or more databases; receiving the requested event log information; parsing the event log information to identify one or more of an event entry indicating a successful database back-up write and an event entry indicating a failed database back-up write to a first network back-up server; creating, upon identification of the failed database back- up write, a configuration file adapted to cause a specific database server experiencing the failed database back-up write to attempt a new database back-up write to correct the failed database back- up write; transmitting the configuration file to the specific database server; requesting configuration information from the specific database server, wherein the configuration information comprises at least a state of the specific database server; receiving the configuration information from the specific database server; and altering, based on the configuration information, a frequency of the new database back-up write. Appeal 2019-001795 Application 11/966,540 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Clark US 2007/0198789 A1 Aug. 23, 2007 Ojalvo US 7,882,073 B1 Feb. 1, 2011 Terretta US 2001/0027491 A1 Oct. 4, 2001 REJECTIONS Claims 9–13, 15–20, and 22–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Final Act. 9–10. Claims 9–13, 15–20, and 22–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Clark, Ojalvo, and Terretta. Final Act. 12. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that claim 9 was directed to an abstract idea without significantly more? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Ojalvo teaches or suggests “requesting configuration information from the specific database server, wherein the configuration information comprises at least a state of the specific database server” and “receiving the configuration information from the specific database server,” as recited in claim 9? ANALYSIS § 101 In 2019, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”); USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, available at Appeal 2019-001795 Application 11/966,540 4 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (“Oct. Update”). Under that guidance, we look to the following steps to determine whether the claim recites the following items: USPTO Step Does the claim recite ___? MPEP § 1 A process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter 2106.03 2A, Prong 1 A judicial exception, such as a law of nature or any of the following groupings of abstract ideas: 1) Mathematical concepts, such as mathematical formulas; 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic practice; or 3) Mental processes, such as an observation or evaluation performed in the human mind. 2106.04 2A, Prong 2 Any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application 2106.05(a)– (c), (e)–(h) 2B Any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception that, alone or in combination, were not “well-understood, routine, conventional” 2106.05(d) See Guidance 52, 55, 56. Under the Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial exception, then it is eligible under § 101 and no further analysis is necessary. Id. at 54. Similarly, under the Guidance, “if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception,” then no further analysis is necessary. Id. at 53, 54. Here, neither Appellant nor the Examiner raise any dispute with respect to USPTO Step 1, so we focus our analysis on USPTO Step 2A, Prongs 1 and 2. Appeal 2019-001795 Application 11/966,540 5 The Examiner concludes that the first three method steps (specifically, the first “requesting” step, the first “receiving” step, and the “parsing” step) are “similar to other ideas found to be abstract by various courts, such as [d]ata recognition and storage.” Ans. 8. The Examiner further concludes that the remaining steps “are routine functions being implemented on a generic computer” that “are merely field of use and insignificant extra- solution activities.” Id. For USPTO Step 2A, Prong 1, we agree with the Examiner that parts of the independent claims recite an abstract idea. For example, “receiving . . . information” and “parsing the . . . information” can be performed entirely in the human mind and therefore constitute mental processes, which are an abstract idea. Guidance 52. Nevertheless, for Prong 2, we agree with Appellant that here the additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. For example, the specific information requested, received, and parsed is “event log information” that is used “to identify” entries “indicating a successful database back-up write” and “a failed database back-up write.” “[U]pon identification of the failed database back-up write,” the claims require “creating . . . a configuration file” that will cause the database server with the failed back-up “to attempt a new database back-up write to correct the failed database back-up write.” The claims separately require requesting and receiving “configuration information” from the same database server with the failed back-up and “altering . . . a frequency of the new database back-up write” “based on the configuration information.” This is significantly more than merely “data recognition and storage,” field of use, or insignificant extra-solution activities. Instead, such additional elements set forth how to Appeal 2019-001795 Application 11/966,540 6 address a failed back-up, i.e., the solution itself. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[S]oftware patent claims satisfy Alice step one when they are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, such as an improvement in the functioning of a computer.” (quotation omitted)). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 101 of independent claims 9, 16, and 23, and their dependent claims 10–13, 15, 17–20, 22, and 24–27. § 103 Independent claims 9, 16, and 23 recite “requesting configuration information from the specific database server, wherein the configuration information comprises at least a state of the specific database server” and “receiving the configuration information from the specific database server.” The Examiner relies on Ojalvo as teaching or suggesting these limitations. Ans. 11. According to the Examiner, in Ojalvo, “the database server . . . operates to receive back up request, wherein the backup requests identifies a plurality of database components (configuration information)” and the database server “monitors status (state) of each of plurality of server backup request (success and/or failure).” Id. (citing Ojalvo 3:1–26, 4:20–26, 4:40–63). At best, this demonstrates that information is requested and received by the database server. The claims, however, require requesting and receiving such information from the database server. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Ojalvo teaches this limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9, 16, and 23, and their dependent claims 10–13, 15, 17– 20, 22, and 24–27. Appeal 2019-001795 Application 11/966,540 7 DECISION The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis / Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 9–13, 15–20, 22–27 101 Eligibility 9–13, 15–20, 22–27 9–13, 15–20, 22–27 103 Clark, Ojalvo, Terretta 9–13, 15–20, 22–27 Overall 9–13, 15–20, 22–27 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation