From: 0001811496@mcimail.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Newsgroups: comp.patents
Subject: Re: Roger E Billings and File Server Patent
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:43:23 GMT

Rob Warnock (rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com) writes:
 
>ernest@suntan.tandem.com.AU (Ernest Hua) writes:
>+---------------
>| Apparently, this guy named Roger E. Billings claims that he invented the 
>| File Server concept and patented it (4,714,989).  The patent was granted
>| in December 1987 (applied for in February 1982).  He claims he did most 
>| of his work during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
>| 
>| Is this guy for real?  How can the concept of a file server be patented?
>+---------------
>
>It could be patented, I suppose, but probably not by this guy. Read the
>article "WFS: The Woodstock File Server" by somebody at Xerox. I think it
>was in the late 70's. It was *published*, so a Feb '82 filing date would
>be far too late.
>
>Also, there had already been published articles in BSTJ (the famous "Unix"
>issue, July/August 1978?) about diskless LSI-11's which used a PDP-11/45
>as a file server.
>
>Unless there is something specifically unique to his *implementation*,
>his patent is worthless.
 
From these posts I am not able to see even a suggestion that the commenters
have read the patent to see what it *claims*.  There have been numerous posts 
to this group pointing out the crucial difference between what a patent
discloses and what it claims, but I feel the point deserves additional 
emphasis.  If what the patent *claims* is something that did not appear in
WFS, published by somebody at Xerox, then it is disingenuous to our readers
if they are to be told that the WFS publication supports the view that
"it could be patented, I suppose, but probably not by this guy."  If what
the patent *claims* is something that is not in the "published articles
in BSTJ", then it is again disingenuous to cite those articles.
 
If one is to attack a patent, one's attack is much more credible and 
meaningful if one actually reads the patent and comments on the *claims*.
One helpful technique, which focuses the attention of both the commenter
and of those who read the comments, is to quote the claim and to point out
with specificity where each element of the claim may be found in the prior
art (here, the WFS or Bell Systems Technical Journal articles).  As a 
reminder, one may receive a copy of the full text and figures of a patent
by sending just $3 and the patent number to the U.S. Patent Office.
 
A check on Lexis shows that this patent is in litigation.  The case name is
"Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation v. Roger E. Billings and American
Academy of Science, a Missouri non-profit corporation."  The case was filed 
Dec. 17, 1991, in U.S. District Court in Utah, Docket No. 91-C-1285. 
brought by Novell, asking the Court to find the patent invalid.  It crosses
my mind that Novell would probably be very interested in suggestions as to
the prior art that supposedly renders the claims of the patent invalid.
Messrs. Hua and Warnock might wish to pass their comments along to Novell
for use in the litigation.
 
Here are claims 1, 6, and 9, the independent claims of the patent.
 
   1. A method of operating a distributed data processing system including a
plurality of independent, not necessarily uniform, general purpose user
computers to run respective user application programs to process user data and a
data center computer to store, retrieve, and update user data, said user
computers being selectively interconnected with said data center computer by
respective data communication hardware over data communication network means,
said method comprising the steps of:
 
   (a) managing in a data center computer by means of a data base manager
program a user data base of user data items to perform data operations of
storing, updating, and retrieving said user data items in response to data base
calls for such operations from a user computer;
 
   (b) running a user application program in a general purpose user computer to
process user data, said user application program indirectly issuing data base
calls for data operations regarding user data items in response to requirements
for said data operations by said user application program;
 
   (c) in response to a data base call regarding a user data item from a user
application program, initiating by said user computer only a data communication
link with said data center computer over data communication network means;
 
   (d) communicating said data base call from said user computer to said data
center computer;
 
   (e) performing by said data center computer said data operation regarding
said user data item defined by said data base call; and
 
   (f) communicating an appropriate response to said data base call from said
data center computer to said user computer.
 
   6. A method of operating a distributed data processing system including a
plurality of independent, not necessarily uniform, general purpose user
computers to run respective user application programs to process user data and a
data center computer to store, retrieve, and update user data, said user
computers being selectively interconnected with said data center computer by
respective data communication hardware over data communication network means,
said method comprising the steps of:
 
   (a) managing in a data center computer by means of a data base manager
program a user data base of user data items to perform data operations of
storing, updating, and retrieving said user data items in response to data base
calls for such operations from a user computer;
 
   (b) running a user application program in a general purpose user computer to
process user data;
 
   (c) linking to said user application program a data base simulator program
which issues data base calls for data operations regarding user data items in
response to requirements for said data operations by said user application
program;
 
   (d) running a data access control program in said data center computer which
includes said data base manager program, said data access control program
allowing access to selected user data items only by selected user computers;
 
   (e) in response to a data base call regarding a user data item from a user
application program, initiating by said user computer only a data communication
link with said data center computer over data communication network means;
 
   (f) communicating said data base call from said user computer to said data
center computer;
 
   (g) in response to said data base call being received from one of said
selected computers and being concerned with at least one of said selected data
items, performing by said data center computer said data operations regarding
said user data item defined by said data base call; and
 
   (h) communicating an appropriate response to said data base call from said
data center computer to said user computer.
 
   9. A functionally structured distributed data processing system comprising:
 
   (a) a data center computer functioning to perform data operations of storing,
retrieving, and updating user data items;
 
   (b) a data base manager program running in said data center computer to
manage a user data base of user data items by performing said data operations in
response to data base calls thereto regarding user data items;
 
   (c) a plurality of not necessarily uniform, general purpose user computers
operating independently of said data center computer to process user data by
running respective user application programs;
 
   (d) each user application program indirectly issuing a data base call for a
data operation regarding a selected data item in response to a requirement for
said data operations by said user application program; and
 
   (e) data communication network means interconnecting said user computers to
said data center computer, said data communication network communicating data
base calls from said user computers to said data center computer and
communicating respective responses to said data base calls from said data center
computer to said user computers.
 
When reading the claims of any patent, there are a number of important things
to keep in mind.  Words in the claims are to be understood in the context of
what the specification says.  (Another reason to spend the $3 to get a copy 
of the patent.)  Where a method is recited in a claim (here, claims 1 and 6)
the steps recited are to be understood as the steps disclosed in the 
specification, and the equivalents thereof.  Where a means is recited in a 
claim (here, item 9e) the means is to be understood as the means in the 
specification, and the equivalents thereof.
 
Carl Oppedahl
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228