Ex Parte Diggs et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 9, 2012

10884699 (B.P.A.I. May. 9, 2012)

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.
10/884,699 07/02/2004 Bradley C. Diggs 004-8949 6575
51344 7590 05/09/2012
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK
1000 TOWN CENTER, TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2012 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 BRADLEY C. DIGGS, THOMAS SHARIF ABDALLAH,
NEIL A. WILSON, STEPHEN T. SHOAFF, and KELLY C. HEMPHILL
____________

Appeal 2010-003067
Application 10/884,699
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003067
Application 10/884,699

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-40 and 42-61. (App. Br. 4.) Claim 41 was cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The Invention
Exemplary independent claim 1 follows:
1. A method of processing directory requests for a
distributed directory namespace, the method comprising:

decoding at least part of a directory request to determine
a value that corresponds to a distribution criteria, wherein sets
of leaf objects having a same directory path in the directory
namespace are disturbuted over separate stores in accordance
with the distribution criteria;

determining an appropriate one or more of the separate
stores based at least in part on the value; and forwarding the
directory request according to the determine appropriate one or
more separate stores.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-10, 12-35, 38-42, and 44-61 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Duursma (U.S. Patent No.
6,643,690). (Ans. 3-9.)
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 36-37, and 43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duursma. (Ans. 9-10.)

Appeal 2010-003067
Application 10/884,699

3
ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner establish that Duursma discloses “decoding at least
part of a directory request to determine a value that corresponds to a
distribution criteria, wherein sets of leaf objects … are distributed over
separate stores in accordance with the distribution criteria,” as recited in
independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 14, 28,
40, 54, and 59?

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires “decoding at least part of a directory
request to determine a value that corresponds to a distribution criteria,
wherein sets of leaf objects … are distributed over separate stores in
accordance with the distribution criteria.” The remaining independent
claims include similar limitations. In other words, as explained by
Appellants, the directory request must include a value for the same
distribution criteria that are used to distribute sets of leaf objects over
separate stores to meet the limitations of any independent claim. (App. Br.
10-11.)
Appellants contend that Duursma does not disclose or teach this claim
limitation. (Id.) In response, the Examiner reasons that a directory request
by a user of Duursma’s system includes user credentials such as a username.
(Ans. 3 and 10-12.) As explained by Appellants, however, the Examiner has
not shown that any user credential in any directory request in Duursma is
used as distribution criteria. (App. Br. 10-12.) Indeed, if the credentials of
Appeal 2010-003067
Application 10/884,699

4
the users making directory requests were used as distribution criteria, then
the leaf objects would need to be rearranged over the separate stores each
time a different user issued a directory request. (See App. Br. 11.) And
there is no teaching of any such rearranging in Duursma. (Id.) For these
reasons, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of any independent
claim or any of the claims dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-40 and 42-61.

REVERSED

pgc