Appeal No. 2001-1131
Application No. 08/761,566
computer and not on the server computer. (See brief at pages 9 and 10.) We agree
with appellants. While the examiner maintains that the server stores the customization
information, appellants’ have submitted two declarations evaluating the prior art
reference(s). These two declarants have determined that the disclosure of Cookies
Proposal does not disclose server side storage and would not have suggested server
side storage of customization information. Again, the examiner does not refute the
evidence in these declarations. The examiner relies upon the second example in the
overview section which teaches that a server can send back registration information
and free the client from retyping a user-id on the next connection. (See answer at page
7.) From our review of Cookies Proposal, we find that the teaching of sending
registration information back to the client suggests the storage of the registration
information at the client rather than storage at the server. Therefore, we find that the
examiner has not provided a teaching of each of the claim limitations and has not
shown a convincing line of reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a unique user identifier to store
customization information at the server or at a location other than the client. Therefore,
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, and we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 17, 20, 21, and 23 and their
respective dependent claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007