Appeal No. 2003-0050
Application 09/240,208
activities as claimed [reply brief, pages 2-3].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 17 and 44 for essentially the reasons argued
by appellants in the briefs. Although Shelton discloses a system
which can track visitors to a web site and monitor the activities
of the visitor to that web site, Shelton does not disclose
predetermining first and second web site activities in which the
first web site activity includes visiting a first set of specific
pages at the website and the second activity includes visiting a
second set of specific pages at the web site. Although Shelton
has the information to track the number of visitors who perform
the first and second activities as defined in claims 17 and 44,
there is no disclosure in Shelton that the claimed method is
performed in the Shelton system. Although the examiner has read
the claimed first and second activities on the session list
maintained by Shelton, claims 17 and 44 specifically define the
activities as visiting a first set of pages or visiting a second
set of pages. We can find no disclosure within Shelton for
tracking this specific information as required by the claimed
invention. Since we have not sustained the examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claims 17 and 44, we also
do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 18,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007