Ex Parte Bailey et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2010

10845567 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BYRON LEWIS BAILEY, ROBERT DOUGLAS HOLT, and
JASON ALLAN NIKOLAI
____________

Appeal 2009-005960
Application 10/845,567
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: May 25, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LEE E. BARRETT, and JAY P. LUCAS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

Appeal 2009-005960
Application 10/845,567

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention pertains to a “symbolic link”1 with addresses
that point to target objects associated with a corresponding condition. See
generally Spec. 1-2, 11-12; Figs. 1, 3B. Claim 1 is illustrative with key
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method comprising:

detecting accessing of a symbolic link, wherein the symbolic
link comprises a plurality of addresses in a plurality of respective
address fields and a plurality of condition fields;

retrieving a condition from an environment;

extracting one of the plurality of addresses from the symbolic
link based on the condition, wherein the extracting further comprises
selecting the one of the plurality of addresses from among the
plurality of addresses in the plurality of respective address fields in
the symbolic link based on the condition and the plurality of condition
fields; and

returning a target object based on the one of the plurality of
addresses.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Hipp US 2004/0243544 A1 Dec. 2, 2004
(eff. filed Oct. 5, 2000)

1 “A symbolic link is a type of file that contains a pathname to a specified
file or other type of object.” Spec. 1:20-21.
Appeal 2009-005960
Application 10/845,567

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Hipp. Ans. 3-13.2

CLAIM GROUPING
Appellants argue claims 1-20 together as a group. See Br. 25-27.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of that group. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hipp
discloses all of the recited subject matter including (1) detecting a symbolic
link with plural addresses in respective address fields, and (2) extracting one
of those addresses from the symbolic link by selecting the address based on
a retrieved condition as claimed. Ans. 3-4. According to the Examiner, this
address selection is achieved by Hipp’s ability to resolve a dynamic
symbolic link (DSL) into different pathnames via the DSL’s tag. Ans. 14-
15.
Appellants argue that Hipp’s link has only one address—not plural
addresses—and therefore does not select one address from plural addresses
in the symbolic link’s address fields as claimed. Br. 25-26. According to
Appellants, Hipp’s link accesses multiple directories by merely replacing a
variable in a single address, not by selecting from among plural addresses in
address fields as claimed. Id.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 25,
2008 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 21, 2008.
Appeal 2009-005960
Application 10/845,567

4
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Hipp selects an address from among plural addresses in respective
address fields in a symbolic link based on a retrieved condition as claimed?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. “A symbolic link is a type of file that contains a pathname to a
specified file or other type of object.” Spec. 1:20-21.
2. Hipp’s system manages resources in a computer network by
resolving a dynamic symbolic link (DSL) that defines a variable pathname to
a requested directory or file. Hipp, ¶¶ 0002, 0013-14, 0025.
3. An exemplary DSL is “/home/${ID}/app/config,” and contains a
DSL declaration “${ID}.” This declaration includes a tag (“ID”) that is a
variable designation associated with one of multiple values. Hipp, ¶¶ 0025-
26, 0029; Figs. 2, 4.
4. The DSL specification associates a value with the tag. Thus, when
the DSL declaration (and its associated tag) is identified, the DSL
specification provides the corresponding value for the declaration’s tag. For
example, the tag “ID” within the declaration “${ID}” of DSL
“/home/${ID}/app/config” is replaced with the value “joe.” This
replacement results in the target pathname “/home/joe/app/config.” Hipp, ¶¶
0026, 0031-34; Figs. 2, 4.
Appeal 2009-005960
Application 10/845,567

5
5. The DSL declaration can be resolved into different values (e.g.,
“joe,” “kim,” “dave,” etc.), thus resulting in different pathnames (e.g.,
“/home/kim/app/config,” “/home/dave/app/config,” etc.). Hipp, ¶ 0033.
6. The DSL specification, including its tag 190 and associated value
192, are registered with operating system (OS) 194 which associates the
DSL specification with processes. Hipp, ¶ 0030; Fig. 3.
7. A DSL can include plural DSL declarations (e.g.,
“/home/${ID}/app/${temp}”). In one embodiment, OS 194 resolves one
declaration (e.g., “${ID}”), then the other (e.g., “${temp}”). The target
pathname is constructed by substituting the value associated with each tag
into the pathname in place of the corresponding DSL declaration. Hipp,
¶¶ 0041-42; Fig. 5 (steps 272-286).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means
that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and
still form a construct within the scope of the claim.” Genentech, Inc. v.
Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, selecting an address from among plural addresses in respective address
fields in a symbolic link based on a retrieved condition. We emphasize these
terms for the claim requires the addresses from which the selection is made
actually be in the symbolic link itself.
Appeal 2009-005960
Application 10/845,567

6
Hipp resolves a DSL (e.g., “/home/${ID}/app/config”) by replacing
the corresponding DSL declaration’s tag (e.g., “ID”) with an associated
value (e.g., “joe”) to arrive at a target pathname (e.g.,
“/home/joe/app/config”). FF 2-4. Although Hipp’s DSL declaration can be
resolved into different values (e.g., “joe,” “kim,” “dave,” etc.) resulting in
different pathnames (e.g., “/home/kim/app/config,”
“/home/dave/app/config,” etc.) (FF 5) as the Examiner indicates (Ans.
14-15), there is still only one address in the symbolic link—a crucial
requirement of claim 1 noted above. That the DSL declaration’s tags can be
replaced with different values resulting in different addresses (id.) does not
mean that one of those addresses is selected from multiple addresses in
respective address fields in the symbolic link itself. Rather, the operating
system merely checks the process associated with the DSL specification, and
returns the replacement values corresponding to the tags according to that
specification. See FF 4-6.
Notably, however, Hipp’s DSL can include multiple declarations that
are sequentially resolved (e.g., “/home/${ID}/app/${temp}”). FF 7. As
shown in Figure 5, Hipp’s system would consecutively resolve this DSL by
substituting the corresponding value for (1) the first tag (e.g., “${ID}”), and
then (2) the second tag (e.g., “${temp}”). Id. In each iteration of this
sequential process, Hipp’s system would effectively “select” one of multiple
addresses in the DSL’s “address fields.” See id. And ultimately, a target
object would be returned “based on” that address. See id.
Even assuming, without deciding, that all such addresses were needed
to return the target object, nothing in claim 1 precludes the recited extracted
addresses to be partial addresses. Nor does claim 1 preclude returning the
Appeal 2009-005960
Application 10/845,567

7
target object “based on” one of those addresses—even if partial. We reach
this conclusion emphasizing the breadth of the claim, as well as the open-
ended term “comprising” in the preamble which does not preclude
additional, unrecited elements. See Genentech, 112 F.3d at 501.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2-20 which fall with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under § 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 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

pgc

IBM CORPORATION
ROCHESTER IP LAW DEPT. 917
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829