Ex Parte Cole

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 13, 2010

10006089 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2010)

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.
10/006,089 12/06/2001 Gary Cole WAVE1110-1 8837
7590 07/14/2010
ROBERT C. KOWERT
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
YIGDALL, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2192
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2010 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 GARY COLE
____________
Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,0891
Technology Center 2100
____________
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LEE E. BARRETT, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, and 14-33. Claims 5, 7, and 13 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 Filed December 6, 2001, titled "System and Method for Managing
Information Objects." The real party in interest is Sun Microsystems, Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a
civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for
rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL
DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic
delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this
decision.

Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention
The invention relates to managing information on a network using an
"identity index." The identity index can maintain a "virtual identity" for
each user, the virtual identity comprising a list of information objects (e.g.,
user accounts) associated with the user and the identities of resources at
which the information objects can be found. The identity index can also
maintain a "resource definition" for each identified resource. Based on the
resource definition and the information object identifier the invention can
connect to each resource and locate the information objects on those
resources. See Abstract.

Illustrative claim
Claim 1 is reproduced below for illustration:

1. A system for managing information, comprising:

a software program stored on a computer-readable medium operable
to maintain an identity index, wherein said identity index
comprises:

a virtual identity for a user of multiple computer resources,
further comprising:

a plurality of information object identifiers each
corresponding to a respective information object;
and

for each information object, a resource name identifying
one of the multiple computer resources at which
Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

3
said respective information object is located,
wherein said resource name is associated with said
respective information object identifier; and

a resource definition corresponding to each respective said
named computer resource, wherein the resource
definition further comprises connection information.

The references

Hoover 5,724,575 Mar. 3, 1998
Dutcher US 6,269,405 B1 Jul. 31, 2001
(filed Oct. 19, 1998)

The rejection
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, and 14-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoover and Dutcher.

DISCUSSION
Claims 1-4, 6, 16, 20, 21, 26-29 and 31-33
The rejection
The Examiner finds that Hoover teaches the limitations of claim 1
except that "Hoover does not expressly disclose that the virtual identity is
'for a user of multiple computer resources.'" Final Office Action (FOA) 3.
The Examiner concludes that "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art could apply
the teachings of Hoover, with predictable results, to the user accounts of
those who operate the multiple computer resources." Id. The Examiner
finds that "Dutcher describes a need for managing different user accounts on
Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

4
multiple, heterogeneous computer resources based on a single user account
definition," id., and concludes that it would have been obvious "to
implement the teachings of Hoover such that the virtual identity is 'for a user
of multiple computer resources,' as Dutcher suggests." Id. at 4. The
Examiner finds that the map table in Figure 7 of Hoover corresponds to an
"identity index" where the object identifiers in Hoover correspond to the
claimed "information object identifiers" and the "location" entries for each
object identifier correspond to "a resource name identifying one of the
multiple computer resources." Id.

Issue
Does the combination of Hoover and Dutcher teach or suggest "a
virtual identity for a user of multiple computer resources" as recited in
independent claim 1?
Independent claims 20 and 26 are not separately argued and therefore
stand or fall together with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Principles of law
"[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).

Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

5
Findings of fact
Hoover
Hoover relates to an object-oriented database system that transforms
data in a plurality of remote, possibly heterogeneous user database structures
into a homogeneous data model in a centralized object broker for object
management thereby facilitating location and retrieval of data items from the
remote, heterogeneous user databases. Col. 1, ll. 9-18.
Hoover describes the application of the distributed database to the
health care industry. Col. 2.
Figure 6 shows the relationship between the object broker and the
remote databases maintained at the client sites. Col. 21, ll. 63-65. The
object broker maintains a map table 120, which "stores information relating
particular object identifiers that have been assigned to particular instances of
objects, to locations of data relating to those objects at the various remote
databases RDBn." Col. 23, ll. 9-12.
Each user computer stores and maintains a plurality of object attribute
tables (OAT) and OAT indexes for each corresponding attribute table, where
"[e]ach object attribute table 140 relates predetermined objects and attributes
of objects to predetermined data fields or data items stored in customer
databases." Col. 23, ll. 55-58.
The map table 120 is shown in Figure 7 and maps an object identifier
(OBJID) to a remote database (RDB) location. Col. 24, l. 36 - col. 25, l. 20.
Hoover teaches that an "add_PERSON" message may be used to add
an instance of a person, where the message has a security parameter
Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

6
"MyPassword" which "indicates a security password for the user initiating
the operation, which of course is unrelated to information associated with
the person whose demographics are being added." Col. 29, ll. 54-57.

Dutcher
Dutcher describes that user management in heterogeneous networks
requires the creation of different user accounts on the different types of
servers. Col. 1, ll. 37-41. "These user accounts eventually have different
passwords and possibly different user I.D.'s. A mechanism is needed to
allow a single user account definition to be used as the basis for any
additional user accounts that exist in the network." Col. 1, ll. 41-45.

Analysis
Appellant argues that Hoover in view of Dutcher does not teach or
suggest an "identity matrix" which includes "a virtual identity for a user of
multiple computer resources" which includes "a plurality of information
object identifiers each corresponding to a respective information object; and
for each information object, a resource name identifying one of the multiple
computer resources at which said respective information object is located,"
as recited in claim 1. Br. 11. It is argued that Hoover describes data about
people (e.g., patient health care information), not a virtual identity "for a
user of multiple computer resources" (claim 1) including a resource name
identifying one of the multiple computer resources. Br. 12. That is,
"Hoover specifically states that the users of the databases are not the people
whose information is stored in the databases." Br. 12 (bolding omitted).
Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

7
The Examiner responds:
Hoover does not explicitly disclose Appellant's intended use of the
virtual identity as "for a user of [the] multiple computer resources."
Importantly, however, Hoover teaches each and every structural
element recited in claim 1. The structure described in Hoover is
capable of providing a virtual identity that is "for a user of [the]
multiple computer resources."

Ans. 17 (emphasis added). The Examiner states that the "add-PERSON"
message at column 29, lines 46-57 of Hoover "does not imply that Hoover is
incapable of providing a virtual identity "for a user of [the] multiple
computer resources.'" Id. at 18 (emphasis added). The Examiner states that
"[t]he use of an administrative password does not preclude or prevent one
from employing the virtual identity system of Hoover to store information
about the actual users of the computer resources." Id. (emphasis added).
The Examiner still further states that "the claimed subject matter differs
from Hoover only in the terms of the 'content' of the information objects."
Id. at 20; see also Ans. 21.
In summary, Appellant argues that the users of the databases in
Hoover are not the people whose information is stored in the database. The
Examiner's response is that the limitation "for a user of multiple computer
resources" is a statement of intended use or, alternatively, that the content of
the identity index is non-functional descriptive information and that the table
structure in Hoover is "capable of" storing any kind of user data.
As a matter of claim interpretation, the term "virtual identity" is
defined as "comprising" information object identifiers for each information
Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

8
object and a resource name for each information object. Appellant does not
appear to dispute that the "object identifiers" in the first column of Figure 7
of Hoover can be considered to correspond to "information object
identifiers" and that the "location" names in the last column of Figure 7
correspond to a "resource name." The term "virtual identity" does not imply
to us any specific additional limitations and, thus, it is not necessary to
consider the Examiner's position regarding intended use and non-functional
descriptive information. Limitations will not be read into the claims from
the specification. For example, claim 1 does not recite that the "virtual
identity" is a collection of data that represents a single entity, such as a user.
(While independent claim 26 is more specific in reciting "an identity index
comprising a plurality of information object identifiers corresponding to a
set of information objects that define a user of multiple computer resources,"
claim 26 is not separately argued and we do not decide whether this
difference in language is sufficient to define over Hoover. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).) A "virtual identity for a user of multiple computer
resources" can be a "virtual identity" of a system for any user of multiple
computer resources. A user of the system in Hoover is "a user of multiple
computer resources" because there are multiple computer resources in
Hoover as indicated by the remote databases RDB1-RDB4 in Figures 1
and 7 and because the user uses those resources.
We agree with Appellant that the map table in Figure 7 does not store
data about the user of the multiple computer resources, but "a virtual identity
for a user of multiple computer resources" does not recite such a limitation.
Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

9
Claim 1 only requires an identity that can be used by any user, i.e., a virtual
identity "for" a user, not "of" a user. (Again, compare unargued independent
claim 26, which recites that the identity index defines a user.)
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, we
conclude that claim 1 would have been obvious over Hoover alone.

Conclusion
The combination of Hoover and Dutcher suggests "a virtual identity
for a user of multiple computer resources" as recited in independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and the rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 16,
20, 21, 26-29 and 31-33 which are not separately argued, is affirmed.

Claims 8-12, 14, 15, 22-25, and 30
Appellant argues that the combination of Hoover and Dutcher does
not teach or suggest that "the information object comprises a user account"
as recited in claim 8. Br. 18. Claims 22 and 30 also recite a "user account."
The Examiner refers to column 27, lines 34-49 of Hoover which
teaches that the PERSON object attributes includes personal information
about the person (e.g., name, birthdate, marital status, address, etc.) which
may indicate a user account with an insurance company. FOA 5-6.
Appellant argues that this again confuses healthcare information about
a person with user account information. Br. 19. It is argued that Hoover's
teaching that security parameter "MyPassword" in the "add-PERSON"
message "indicates a security password for the user initiating the operation,
which of course is unrelated to information associated with the person whose
Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

10
demographics are being added" (Hoover, col. 29, ll. 54-57), so the
information stored in databases is unrelated to users of the database. Br. 19.
As noted in the claim interpretation of claim 1, claim 1 recites a
virtual identity "for" a user and does not define the "virtual identity" as a
collection of data that represents a single entity. The security parameter
(e.g., MyPassword) in Hoover is sent to a remote database which verifies
that the user that initiated the request is permitted access (Hoover, col. 29,
l. 66 to col. 30, l. 4), so it appears that one information object on one of the
resources must include the security parameter, which corresponds to a user
account "for" a user of the system. In addition, Dutcher indicates that user
management in heterogeneous networks requires the creation of different
user accounts on the different types of servers (col. 1, ll. 37-41) and that a
"mechanism is needed to allow a single user account definition to be used as
the basis for any additional user accounts that exist in the network." Col. 1,
ll. 41-45. Therefore, Dutcher reasonably suggests that information objects
on the heterogeneous resources include "user account" information for the
"user" of the computer resources. Accordingly, we conclude that it would
have been obvious for an information object to include a "user account" for a
user. The rejection of claims 8-12, 14, 15, 22-25, and 30 is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

11
Claims 17-19
Dependent claim 17 recites "wherein said resource definition further
comprises a schema map and wherein said software program is operable to
create a composite view of said virtual identity based on said schema map."
The Examiner finds that the "mapping" of data described at
column 27, lines 11-14 of Hoover teaches that the resource definition
comprises a schema map, and that the "cross server join" described at
column 25, lines 20-35 is creating a "composite view of said virtual identity
based on said schema map" in claim 17. FOA 7; Ans. 24.
Appellant argues that column 25 does not involve creating a
composite view of a "virtual identity" as claimed, but only teaches a "cross
server join" to gather various pieces of information about a person whose
healthcare information is stored across Hoover's distributed databases.
Br. 20.
It is not clear that Hoover fairly meets the limitations of claim 17.
Column 27 of Hoover describes that the object attribute tables 140 in a user
computer are the result of "mapping" data. It may be that this mapping is a
"schema map," however, the attributes tables are on the user computer and
not part of a "resource definition" which is part of the claimed "identify
index." In addition, the object attribute tables, e.g. in Figure 9, do not
contain a "resource name" for each object identifier, which is inconsistent
with the definition of a "virtual identity" in claim 1. Accordingly, Hoover
does not satisfy the limitations of claim 17. The rejection of claim 17 and
dependent claims 18 and 19 is reversed.
Appeal 2009-004443
Application 10/006,089

12

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14-16 and 20-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Requests for extensions of time are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(b).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

erc

ROBERT C. KOWERT
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398