Appeal No. 2004-1627
Application No. 09/207,945
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, 19-23, 25-32, 34-36, 38-42, 44-51,
53-55 and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wodarz, Monier, Blumenau and Shaw.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 35, mailed
February 24, 2004) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the
appeal brief (Paper No. 34, filed December 11, 2003) and the
reply brief (Paper No. 36, filed March 15, 2004) for Appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner, in addition to Wodarz
and Monier relies on Blumenau for teaching the step of appending
the stored record of the user request with a unique URL
identifier and on Shaw for logging an advertisement ID in a log
file for the server process (answer, page 5). Based on the
teachings of these prior art references, the Examiner concludes
that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to store
information about an object content in a log file since the
advertisement “eligible to particular user” can be determined
(id.).
Appellants point out that the combination of Blumenau and
Shaw does not disclose or suggest the claimed step of “appending
the stored record of the user request with the unique identifier
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007