Appeal No. 2003-0293
Application No. 09/472,197 Page 8
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that although
Scroggie teaches a first identifier corresponding to a first
computer associated with a consumer in the form of an e-mail
address, Scroggie fails to specifically disclose that the first
identifier identifies a specific computer. To make up for this
deficiency of Scroggie, the examiner turns to Laor for a teaching
of using identifiers such as cookies as a means of identifying a
computer. The examiner asserts (id.) that identifiers such as
cookies and IP address were well known for use in identifying a
computer at the time of appellants' invention, and that it would
have been obvious to utilize cookies as a means to identify a
computer associated with a consumer since cookies were well known
for providing this type of information.
Appellants assert (brief, page 6) that there is no
motivation to modify Scroggie, because Laor merely teaches the
use of cookies to deliver coupons. Appellants question why it
would have been obvious to associate a cookie with an offline
purchase history of the consumer collected at a point-of-sale
when the purchase transpired.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007