Appeal No. 2001-1131
Application No. 08/761,566
Mengelbier, M., “Proposal for Extended Persistent Client State HTTP Cookies,”
http://www.sbm.temple.edu/-magnus/ext_cookie_spec.html, Mar. 29, 1996, (printed on
Jun. 6, 1999 at 12:50 PM), pp.1-7. (Cookies Proposal)
Claims 1-21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over a public use or sale of the invention as shown by Amdur in view of
Cookies Proposal. (See answer at page 4.)
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed May 19, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 15, filed Feb. 24, 2000) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
PUBLIC USE OR SALE
The statement of the rejection is based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103, but the rejection is
stated as being over a public use or sale of the invention as shown by Amdur in view of
Cookies Proposal. (See answer at page 5.) We are unclear as to the examiner’s basis
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007