Appeal No. 2005-0473
Application No. 09/514,946
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
U.S. Patents
Gardenswartz et al. (Gardenswartz) 6,055,573 Apr. 25, 2000
(filed Jan. 7, 1999)
Roth et al. (Roth) 6,285,987 Sep. 4, 2001
(filed Jan. 22, 1997)
Published U.S. Patent Application
Travis et al. (Travis) US 2002/0010668 A1 Jan. 24, 2002
(filed Jan. 27, 2000)
Claims 1, 3-10, and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gardenswartz and Roth.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gardenswartz and Travis.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 18, mailed May 6,
2004) for the Examiner’s reasoning and to the appeal brief (Paper
No. 17, filed February 17, 2004) and the reply brief (Paper No.
19, filed July 6, 2004) for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims
over Gardenswartz and Roth, we note that the Examiner relies on
Gardenswartz for teaching that cookies are used to record the
online activities of a consumer while the stored preferences may
be interpreted as the sites visited (answer, page 4). The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007