Ask Patents is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
    
Welcome to Ask Patents. I'd like to provide some information about the site. We have a big template for prior art questions. It may be overkill in some cases and you do not need to use the template to post a question, but like all SE sites we would like questions and answers to be self contained enough that following a link is not required. Pasting in a representative claim from the patent in question would go a long way to improving this question. Also, not to be overly pedantic but, like other SE sites we try not to mix a question and an answer in a single post. – George White May 22 '14 at 1:51
    
At a quick look, I do not think there is clear prior art in that paper. The Bell Labs paper is about putting a conventional file system view on an object oriented database. The patent cited is almost the converse. It puts an object oriented view on a conventional file system. – George White May 22 '14 at 1:55
    
Definitely should have used the form. I disagree on your characterization of the '36 patent, though: "An embodiment of a method receives file operation commands through a client interface and performs CIM functions corresponding to the received file operation commands based on a mapping of the file operation commands to the CIM functions." CIM is basically an object-oriented database... – Ross Judson Jun 18 '14 at 17:32

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.