Appeal No. 2003-1031 Page 14
Application No. 09/050,841
(Supp. Appeal Br. at 15.) For example, Davis explains that "[t]he tracking program
executes on a client machine, and is stored, for example, in RAM. The tracking
program may monitor various indicia, such as time, mouse events, keyboard events,
and the like, in order to track a user's interaction with the Web page." Col. 8, ll. 12-16.
"When the user leaves the Web page . . ., the tracking program sends the monitored
time to another computer on the Internet for storage and analysis." Col. 9, ll. 11-15.
Therefore, we reverse rejection of claim 10; of claims 11-17, which depend
therefrom; of claim 30; of claims 31-37, which depend therefrom; of claim 47; and of
claims 48 and 49, which depend therefrom.
C. CLAIMS 18-21, 38-41, AND 50
The examiner admits, "Giacoppo does not explicitly discloses [sic] said plurality
of vendors comprising a plurality of non-cooperating domains, said non-cooperating
domains having no knowledge of one another and wherein said non-cooperating
domains do not directly communicate state information between another." (Examiner's
Answer at 23.) Faced with this omission, he takes official notice that a "third party
acting as host to offer as proxy service or clearinghouse for plurality of website where
each website has no knowledge of one another is common in the Internet art." (Id.)
The examiner then asserts, "it would have been obvious . . . to implement Giacoppo's
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007