Ex Parte Bixby et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2011

10945653 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2011)

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.
10/945,653 09/21/2004 Peter C. Bixby 10830.0114.NPUS00 7352
27927 7590 09/12/2011
RICHARD AUCHTERLONIE
NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG, LLP
1000 LOUISIANA
53RD FLOOR
HOUSTON, TX 77002
EXAMINER
TIMBLIN, ROBERT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PETER C. BIXBY, XIAOYE JIANG, UDAY K. GUPTA, and
SORIN FAIBISH
____________

Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY, 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 2, 3, 15, 19-22, 25, and 26. Claims 1, 4-12, 14, 16-18,
24, and 27-33 have been cancelled (App. Br. 4), and claims 13, 23, and 34
have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter (Ans. 2). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention manages a nested multilayer directory structure
in a network storage system using a “global index” that abstracts the
directory structure. See generally Spec. ¶ 0001; Abstract. Claim 2 is
illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized:
2. A storage system comprising:
a plurality of servers for interconnection in a data
network for servicing client requests for data, the servers
storing a nested multilayer directory structure distributed
among the servers and indexing the data,
wherein the storage system is programmed to store a
global index to the nested multilayer directory structure, the
global index is an abstract of the nested multilayer directory
structure, the global index identifies respective portions of the
nested multilayer directory structure that are stored in
respective ones of the servers, and the global index identifies
paths through the nested multilayer directory structure linking
the respective portions of the nested multilayer directory
structure, and
wherein the storage system is further programmed to
perform a top-down search of the nested multilayer directory
structure in response to a client request, and upon finding that a
portion of the nested multilayer directory structure is offline so
as to be inaccessible for searching, to search the global index
for portions of the nested multilayer directory structure that are
located below the offline portion of the nested multilayer
directory structure.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ohnishi US 6,269,371 B1 July 31, 2001
Venkatesh US 2003/0158836 A1 Aug. 21, 2003

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 15, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653

3
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Ohnishi. Ans. 3-8.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ohnishi and Venkatesh. Ans. 9-11.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that Ohnishi discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 2 including file systems that are said to reside on
different servers storing nested multilayer directory structures, and a “global
index” denoted in part by the separator character “/” at the top of the file
system hierarchies in Ohnishi’s Figures 4A through 7. Ans. 3-5, 12-16.
According to the Examiner, Ohnishi searches multilayer directory structures
in the network file system and, upon finding that part of a structure is
offline, the global index is then searched for portions below the offline
portions in the local file system. Id. at 4-5, 16-18.
Appellants argue that Ohnishi fails to disclose: (1) plural servers
storing nested multilayer directory structures; (2) a distinct global index that
abstracts the multilayer directory structure, and identifies (a) structure
portions stored in respective servers, and (b) paths through the structure
linking its respective portions; and (3) the system programmed to perform a
top-down search of the structure and, upon finding that part of a structure is
offline, the global index is searched for portions below the offline portions
as claimed. App. Br. 16-24; Reply Br. 1-4. According to Appellants,
Ohnishi’s root directory (“/”) is not a global index since not only is it not

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed March 16,
2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 2, 2009; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed September 2, 2009.
Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653

4
part of the multilayer directory structure and therefore not distinct from this
structure, Ohnishi’s root directory does not have the features of the recited
global index. Id. Appellants also argue various features of claims 3 and 19
indicated below. App. Br. 25. The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Ohnishi
discloses:
(1)(a) plural servers storing nested multilayer directory structures; (b)
a global index that abstracts the multilayer directory structure, and identifies
(i) structure portions stored in respective servers, and (ii) paths through the
structure linking its respective portions; and (c) the system programmed to
perform a top-down search of the structure and, upon finding that part of a
structure is offline, to search the global index for portions below the offline
portions as recited in claim 1?
(2) passing search requests to servers containing portions of the
structure located on a search path specified by a client request as recited in
claim 3?
(3) searching at least one portion of the directory structure below the
offline portion to (a) find the file, and (b) return a file handle to the client as
recited in claim 19?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Unlike personal computers, Network Computers (NCs) are used
based on a network connection such that all necessary programs and data are
Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653

5
downloaded from a server. Therefore, NCs operating as client computers
need not have programs and data. Ohnishi, col. 1, ll. 14-24.
2. Ohnishi downloads all programs and data from server computer
11’s network file system 111 via network 10 to NCs 12A-12C.2 These NCs
operate as client machines and are used for the office, mobile, and Point to
Point Protocol (PPP) modes, respectively. Ohnishi, col. 4, ll. 1-28; Fig. 1.
3. NC 12 has a local storage device 121 to operate offline and stores
replicas 133 which are copies of the server’s programs and data. Ohnishi,
col. 4, ll. 29-34; Fig. 1.
4. Accessed files are designated using a “file access pass” expressed
by a character string dividing the name of a parent directory in which the file
is stored by a separator. For example, if an NC accesses FILE2 in Figure
4A, its file access pass is “/DIR1/DIR4/FILE2”). Ohnishi, col. 7, l. 58 – col.
8, l. 6; Fig. 4A.
5. A file system is mounted to a specific prefix which is part of a file
access pass, thus enabling accessing plural file systems using a series of file
access passes. For example, “FILE SYSTEM 1” in Figure 4B can be
accessed by adding the prefix “/file system1” before the associated file
access pass. Ohnishi, col. 8, ll. 7-29; Fig. 4B.
6. Ohnishi automatically switches file systems allocated to an NC
depending on whether the NC is online or offline. In the office and PPP
modes, the network file system provided by server 11 is mounted to the
“/HOME” prefix designating the user’s home directory. The local file
system of the NC’s local storage 121 for replicating the content, however, is

2 Ohnishi represents numerals 12A-12C (which denote three different NCs)
collectively as numeral 12. Ohnishi, col. 4, ll. 4-5.
Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653

6
mounted to the “/RPLC” prefix. Ohnishi, col. 8, ll. 30-55; col. 9, ll. 11-36;
col. 10, ll. 46-67; Figs. 5, 7.
7. Since users cannot access the network file system in the mobile
mode, the file system mounted to the “/HOME” prefix is switched to the
local file system that replicates server resources. Ohnishi, col. 8, l. 56 – col.
9, l. 10; Fig. 6.
8. Ohnishi’s Figures 4A through 7 all show an indicator “/” located in
a box at the top of their respective file system hierarchies as shown below:

Ohnishi’s file system hierarchies in Figures 4A through 7
Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653

7
ANALYSIS
Claims 2 and 15
We begin by construing a key disputed limitation of representative
claim 2 which recites, in pertinent part, plural servers that store a distributed
nested multilayer directory structure. Since Ohnishi’s server computer
functions as a server by its very label (FF 1-2), the key question is whether
Ohnishi’s NCs also function as servers under the term’s broadest reasonable
interpretation.
The Examiner and Appellants disagree on this point, and cite various
published definitions of “server” and “client” to support their respective
positions. App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 1-2; Ans. 13. According to the
Examiner, clients and servers need not be computers, but rather could be
applications: an interpretation that is said to not preclude Ohnishi’s file
system “servers” that provide data to requesting clients. Ans. 13.
To be sure, Ohnishi unambiguously indicates that NCs function as
client machines that depend on a server computer to provide them with the
requisite programs and data for their operation. FF 1-2. Unlike personal
computers, NCs are essentially “thin” clients with minimal inherent
functionality apart from that obtained from the server via a network. See id.
But nothing in the claim precludes this client-based functionality from
performing at least some server functions, including file storage and access,
given the scope and breadth of the term “server.” Since the term “server” is
not defined in the Specification, we construe the term with its plain meaning.
The term “server” is defined in pertinent part as follows:
On the Internet or other network, a computer or program that
responds to commands from a client. For example, a file server
may contain an archive of data or program files; when a client
Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653

8
submits a request for a file, the server transfers a copy of the
file to the client.

MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 474 (5th ed. 2002) (emphasis added).

The Microsoft Computer Dictionary also defines “client” in pertinent
part as follows:
A process, such as a program or task, that requests a service
provided by another program—for example, a word processor
that calls on a sort routine built into another program. The
client process uses the requested service without having to
“know” any working details about the other program or the
service itself.

Id. at 102 (emphases added).

Based on these definitions which indicate that both servers and clients
can include programs, we see no error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 13)
that at least some of the functionality associated with Ohnishi’s NCs would
function not only as a client, but also a server. That is, a client process
associated with the NC requests access to locally-stored files when offline—
access governed by functionality associated with the NC that essentially
operates as a server to the requesting client process. See FF 3-8.
We also see no error in the Examiner’s position that Ohnishi discloses
a “global index” (Ans. 14-16) that includes prefixes for particular file access
passes. See FF 4-8. Since these prefixes are added before their associated
file access pass, the prefixes are therefore distinct from the path (i.e.,
multilayer directory structure) indicated by the access pass. See id.
Therefore, the prefixes “/HOME” and “/RPLC” indicating the network and
local file systems, respectively, function as a “global index” as the Examiner
indicates (Ans. 14-15) since these prefixes essentially “abstract” or
Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653

9
summarize the nested multilayer directory structures associated with those
prefixes, namely the respective network and local file systems. See id.
As the Examiner indicates (Ans. 14-16), Ohnishi’s prefix-based
“global index” also identifies respective portions of the directory structure
that are stored in respective servers by identifying whether the associated
directory portions correspond to the network file system (“/HOME”) or local
file system (“/RPLC”), respectively. See FF 4-8. And these global indices
likewise uniquely identify paths through associated directory structures
linking their respective portions. For example, the prefix “/HOME” for path
“/DIR1/DIR4/FILE2” (1) identifies that particular path through the server
computer’s network file system, and (2) distinguishes that path from its
replica in the local file system identified by the “/RPLC” prefix. See FF 4,
6, 8.
Lastly, we find the Examiner’s rationale regarding the last clause of
claim 1 (Ans. 17-18) persuasive since, as the Examiner indicates, Ohnishi’s
system can perform a top-down search of the network file system and, upon
finding that at least part of a directory structure is offline, continue searching
the local file system’s global index for portions below the offline portions as
claimed. See FF 6-8. Notably, the Examiner finds this functionality that
automatically switches to the local file system when the network file system
is offline fully meets the limitation under two different interpretations which
we find reasonable on this record. That is, we see no error in the Examiner’s
finding that the accessed portions in the local file system when the network
file system is offline are not only “below” their counterparts in the network
file system in terms of priority (i.e., a lower-priority backup to the primary
versions in the network file system), but the accessed portions are also
Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653

10
located in the local file system’s directory structure hierarchy below the
identical network file system portion where the initial search ended (i.e., the
offline portion). Ans. 17-18; FF 6-8.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 2, and claim 15 not separately argued with particularity.

Claim 3
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3
since nothing in the claim precludes Ohnishi’s passing search requests from
the network file system server to the local file system servers that replicate
the directory structure located on specified requested search paths. See FF
3-8. Appellants’ contention that file systems are not servers (App. Br. 25-
26) is unavailing for the reasons noted previously.

Claims 19-22
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 19
since we see no error in the Examiner’s position that when servicing file
requests, Ohnishi’s system would return some sort of identifying file
“handle” or name to the requesting client. Ans. 19. Appellants’ contention
that portions of Ohnishi’s nested multilayer directory structure are not below
that of the network file system (App. Br. 25) is unavailing for the reasons
noted previously.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 19, and claim 21 not separately argued with
particularity. We likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) claim 20
Appeal 2010-000046
Application 10/945,653

11
for the reasons noted above regarding commensurate claim 3, and (2) claim
22 not separately argued with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 25
and 26 (Ans. 9-11) essentially for the reasons noted previously. Nor are we
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Venkatesh to cure
Ohnishi’s acknowledged deficiencies regarding data mover computers and
storage arrays in concluding the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 10-
11. Appellants’ arguments regarding the cited prior art’s alleged
shortcomings for teaching the recited global index (App. Br. 31-32) are
unavailing for the reasons noted previously.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 2, 3, 15, and 19-22
under § 102, and (2) claims 25 and 26 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 15, 19-22, 25, and 26
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

llw