Appeal No. 2004-1627
Application No. 09/207,945
associated with the content object included within the generated
Web page” (brief, page 4). Appellants specifically argue that
what the examiner characterizes as “appending the stored record”
in Blumenau is actually a series of separate entries in the log
file for each one of the multiple transferred files resulted from
a request for a web page (brief, page 5 & reply brief, page 3).
Additionally, Appellants point out that Shaw merely discloses a
server which uses information in a member profile and/or an event
log file to determine which advertisements should be directed to
a particular user (brief, page 6).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that storing the record of the requested files as a “log file” in
Blumenau indicates that the stored log file is not different from
the claimed “appending the stored record of the user request”
(answer, page 16). The Examiner further argues that the fact
that Blumenau generates the requested Web page “by analyzing
transactions in the log file,” proves that the identifications or
the information of other files are stored in the log file
(answer, page 17).
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007