Ex Parte Lessard

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 13, 2009

10334819 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 13, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MICHAEL R. LESSARD
________________

Appeal 2009-004776
Application 10/334,819
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided: October 13, 2009
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-004776
Application 10/334,819

2
Invention
The present invention provides methods and systems for
virtualizing data as virtual native data to a host operating
environment, in which at least a portion of the data is from a
source that is external to the host operating environment. A set
of data is virtualized, including integrating at least a portion of
the set of data with at least a portion of an obtained set of
virtual data. The integrating can generate a resulting data set,
such as a data object. Additional data sets can be virtualized and
integrated with generated resulting data sets through recursive
iteration.
(Spec. 61; Abstract; Figs. 1, 2.)

Representative Claim
1. A method for virtualizing data as virtual native data to a host
operating environment, the method comprising:

executing a virtualization program to wrap first external
data with attribute data to thereby create a first set of virtual
native data the first external data being received from a first
source external to a host environment system, the wrapping
allowing the first set of virtual native data to be manipulated by
the host environment system;

executing the virtualization program to wrap second
external data with attribute data to thereby create a second set
of virtual native data, the second external data being
received from a second source external to the host environment
system, the wrapping allowing the second set of virtual native
data to be manipulated by the host environment system; and

integrating at least a portion of the second set of virtual
native data with at least a portion of the first set of virtual native
data.

Appeal 2009-004776
Application 10/334,819

3
Prior Art and Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of
anticipation and unpatentability:
Bobbitt 7,024,427 B2 Apr. 4, 2006
(filed Dec. 19, 2001)

Claims 1-20 and 22-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Bobbitt. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies upon Bobbitt
alone.

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, we consider independent
claim 1 as representative of the subject matter of independent claims 1, 15,
and 22 since the corresponding features of each of them are argued
collectively. No arguments are presented to us as to any dependent claim on
appeal, including the separately stated rejection of dependent claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
Bobbitt teaches a virtualization program that wraps data with attribute data?

FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
1. The functionality of wrapping attribute data is generally disclosed in the
Specification as filed in these locations:
Conceptually, the data virtualization program 108 can be
viewed as causing wrapping, as represented by broken circle
Appeal 2009-004776
Application 10/334,819

4
136 [in Figure 1], of the external data set 116 with any
necessary attributes, associations, or qualities to allow it to be
accessed and manipulated from within the host operating
environment.
(Spec. 15, ll. 2-5.)

As conceptually represented by broken arrows 230 and 236 [in
Figure 2], the data virtualization program 208 causes the
external data sets 222 and 224 to be associated with all of the
attributes of the Lotus® Notes document 206, which may
include form information or metadata information, revision
history information, document data used by Lotus® Notes or
applications running in the host operating environment in
identifying the Lotus® Notes document 206, and potentially
other information.
(Spec. 16, ll. 16-21.)
Essentially, Appellant’s invention takes external data and
conceptually wraps it with all of the attributes of native data to a host
operating environment, which in turn would “see” this external data as
native data for purposes of access and manipulation operations so that it can
operate on the virtualized native data identically to the native data itself.

2. Bobbitt’s Abstract teaches:
A virtual file system and method. The system architecture
enables a plurality of underlying file systems running on
various file servers to be “virtualized” into one or more “virtual
volumes” that appear as a local file system to clients that access
the virtual volumes. The system also enables the storage spaces
of the underlying file systems to be aggregated into a single
virtual storage space, which can be dynamically scaled by
adding or removing file servers without taking any of the file
systems offline and in a manner transparent to the clients.
(ll.1-10.)
Appeal 2009-004776
Application 10/334,819

5
These broad concepts are amplified slightly by these portions of
Bobbitt’s summary of the invention:
The present invention comprises a virtual file system and
method that addresses many of the foregoing limitations found
in the prior art. The system architecture enables file systems to
be virtualized. The system provides one or more virtual file
system volumes each of which appears to be a normal file
system while in reality the files in each virtual file system may
be stored on many file systems on a plurality of file servers.
File systems manifest themselves to users as a hierarchy of
directories (also known as folders) containing files. The virtual
file system also manifests itself the same way. Unique to the
invention is the independence of the name and position of a file
in this hierarchy, from its location on one of the plurality of file
servers. This virtualization functionality is facilitated through
the use of a software layer that, for each virtual volume and file
pathname, intercepts file system requests and maps the virtual
pathname to the actual server and pathname under which the
file is stored.
(Col. 1, l. 66-col. 2, ll. 15.)
In one embodiment, the virtual file system enables users to
create virtual file hierarchies that are mapped behind the scene
to one or more logical volumes on one or more servers. The
actual hierarchy of directories and files comprising the portion
of a single logical volume devoted to a particular virtual file
system is called a gtree. Each virtual file system has two kinds
of gtrees: a single master gtree and one or more slave gtrees.
The master gtree functions as a centralized name service for the
entire virtual file system, containing the directory names,
attributes, and contents, and the file names. The slave gtree
serves as a storage server, containing the file attributes and
contents. For each file, the master gtree contains a file
pointer that contains the file’s unique identifier and the
identifier of the slave on which the file’s contents and attributes
are located. In addition, each directory contains a special file
with a reserved name that contains a unique identifier for that
directory.
(Col. 2, ll. 31-47.)
Appeal 2009-004776
Application 10/334,819

6
Significantly, Bobbitt also teaches:
Gossamer uses local constructs called gtrees, which contain
data corresponding to individual file systems to encode a single
location-independent file system. This is accomplished by
splitting the file system data into two parts, and storing the
corresponding data into two separate types of gtrees. Metadata
corresponding to a virtual directory and pathname hierarchy is
stored on the master gtree, which functions as a name
service. In one embodiment, the master name service for a
GVV uses multiple gtrees as replicas. The file system data (i.e.,
data files and directories) is partitioned among multiple slave
gtrees, which function as storage servers for file data. In one
embodiment, each data file is stored on a single slave
gtree. It is noted that in this embodiment redundant copies of a
data file may be stored in multiple locations by the underlying
file system, volume management software, or disk controller
(e.g., a mirrored drive, RAID scheme, etc.); however, from the
perspective of the Gossamer file system, the data file is
manifest as a single local file. The directories and their contents
and attributes are stored in the master gtree. Files and their
contents and attributes are stored on the slave gtrees. The
master and slave gtrees are connected by file pointers, which
are objects on the master gtree that map from the file's virtual
pathname to a globally unique identifier (GUID) for the file and
the gtree that hosts it. In general, the master gtree is hosted on
a single volume, while the slave gtrees are hosted on one or
more volumes that may or may not include the volume the
master gtree is hosted on.
(Col. 7, l. 54-col. 8, l. 15.)
Each of the file pointers comprises a very small file containing
two pieces of information: a file GUID (guid) corresponding to
the file itself, and a GUID slave location identifier (loc) that
identifies the gtree the file is located on. The gtree and file
GUID are sufficient to retrieve the file's attributes and contents.
For example, file pointer 72 corresponding to the “data.dat” file
has a file GUID of 4267, and a slave location identifier of
3215.
(Col. 8, ll. 51-58.)
Appeal 2009-004776
Application 10/334,819

7
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications
not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.

ANALYSIS
According to the theme of Appellant’s arguments at pages 5-8 of the
Brief on appeal, the Examiner directly addresses these remarks, which are
part of our issue statement set forth earlier in this opinion, in the Examiner’s
responsive arguments at pages 7 and 8 of the Answer which we reproduce
here:
Appellant states the rejection of claims 1, 15 and 22 is improper
because Bobbitt fails to identically disclose each and every
claim limitation, e.g. “executing a virtualization program to
wrap first external data with attribute data to thereby create a
first set of virtual native data,” and “executing the virtualization
program to wrap second external data with attribute data to
thereby create a second set of virtual native data.” Appellant
further states that “pointer data”, mapped by the Examiner as
attribute data, is wholly inconsistent with the claimed “attribute
Appeal 2009-004776
Application 10/334,819

8
data”. The examiner disagrees. The examiner would like to first
state that Appellant has provided no express definition of
attribute data, either explicitly or implied. Even portions of
Appellants brief (pg. 7, 3rd paragraph), that attempt to provide a
definition of attribute data recited on page 16, lines
17-21 of the specification provides such in an exemplary
embodiment. Claim limitations are not defined by what is
exemplary, but what is expressed detailed. Attributes are
characteristics of an entity. For example, the color of a persons'
eyes is an attribute of that person. Another example would be
one's mailing address as an attribute that details where that
person lives. The pointers used in Bobbitt are an attribute of
where the data is located. Bobbitt's invention allows external
data to be readily available to be access by local devices by
virtualization the data. The virtual data appear as native data to
the local processing devices wherein the pointer allows one to
circum-navigate to access the data regardless of where it is
stored, thereby appearing local to the accessing local device. By
creating and using a pointer to virtualize the access to the data
such that the data appears local to the local device, Bobbitt
teaches the claimed limitations of wrapping external data
(external file / data) with attribute data (pointer that allows for
virtualized access to the external data). Bobbitt further teaches
that this applies to multiple sets of external data and stores the
pointers to the plurality of external data as a virtual directory or
virtual volume (abstract). Thereby, the examiner believes that
Bobbitt adequately teaches the limitations of the
claims.

No Reply Brief has been filed to dispute these positions of the Examiner.
Based upon our reproduction of the Appellant’s concept of the term
“wrapping” as well as the concept of wrapping attribute data we reproduced
in FF 1 from Appellant’s Specification as filed, the Examiner’s positions we
just reproduced are consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of
them and of an artisan’s understanding of the actual scope of the concepts of
wrapping as well as wrapping attribute data. In a matter broadly consistent
Appeal 2009-004776
Application 10/334,819

9
with the Appellant’s disclosed approaches, Bobbitt’s approaches are to map
or otherwise associate data and attributes of the data from disparate storage
systems into a common system accessibility by using his own virtualization
approaches as exemplified by our excerpts in FF 2 from Bobbitt’s
disclosure. Appellant’s broadly claimed and broadly defined in the
Specification concepts of wrapping and wrapping attribute data fall within
the ambit of the Examiner’s positions as well as within the teachings in
Bobbitt. In other words, the nature and scope of recitations in representative
independent claim 1 on appeal do not distinguish, from an artisan’s
perspective, over the teachings of Bobbitt. Moreover, Bobbitt’s mapping
techniques include mapping “attributes” of the data itself as the reader will
appreciate from the excerpted portions from Bobbitt in FF 2.

CONCLUSION AND DECISION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Bobbitt teaches the concept of wrapping as well as wrapping attribute data
as recited in representative independent claim 1 on appeal. Therefore, the
Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 encompassing all
claims on appeal, claims 1-35, are affirmed. All claims on appeal are
unpatentable.
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)(v).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-004776
Application 10/334,819

10
erc

IBM CORP. (LOT)
C/O Ostrow Kaufman & Frankl LLP
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 62nd Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10174