Appeal No. 2003-1031 Page 8
Application No. 09/050,841
explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1697(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, Rosenberg discloses "[a] method of tracking a web browser across distinct
domains of a network of computers. . . ." P. 4, ll. 18-19. Figure 1 of the reference
represents the distinct domains as "two server computers 24A and 24B, although a
typical embodiment of the invention would include a larger number of server computers,
say server computers 24A through 24N." P. 6, ll. 8-10. "[I]t is clear from the reference
that . . . the servers have distinct domain names. . . ." (Supp. Appeal Br. at 9.)
Because the domains can comprise a variable number (viz., "N") of servers, we find
that each server lacks knowledge of the other servers.
Furthermore, the server computers ("servers") are unable to directly
communicate state information between themselves. Instead, the servers
communicate state information through a database. "As shown in Figure 1, the
database 25 is accessible by each server computer 24 in the network," p. 7, ll. 20-21;
"each server can access the information in the database that is set by other servers."
P. 11, ll. 22-23.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007