Ex Parte SHAPIRA et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2003-0050                                                        
          Application 09/240,208                                                      

          The disclosed invention pertains to a method for                            
          analyzing traffic data generated by a web server and to a method            
          for analyzing an advertising campaign for a web server.                     
          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.   A method for evaluating an advertising campaign for a             
          first web server to which visitors are referred by a link located           
          on a second web server, said method comprising:                             
               defining a plurality of qualification levels for the first             
          web server, including associating at least one of the                       
          qualification levels with a plurality of the URLs located on the            
          first web server;                                                           
               identifying the visitors who contacted the first web server            
          via the link located on the second web server; and                          
               associating each visitor who visits the plurality of URLs              
          located on the first web server with said one qualification                 
          level.                                                                      
          The examiner relies on the following references:                            
          Dedrick                       5,724,521          Mar. 03, 1998              
          Shelton et al. (Shelton)      5,954,798          Sep. 21, 1999              
          (filed Oct. 06, 1997)                                                       
          Allard et al. (Allard)        6,018,619          Jan. 25, 2000              
          (filed May  24, 1996)                                                       
          Claims 17-19, 24 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                      
          § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Shelton.                 
          Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being           
          unpatentable over the teachings of Shelton taken alone1.  Claims            

               1  The final rejection and the examiner’s answer mistakenly            
          list the rejection of claims 25 and 26 as being under 35 U.S.C.             
                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007