Appeal No. 2005-2338
Application No. 09/754,001
arguments as to why the limitations common to claims 3, 13 and 20 are not
taught by Teper. On page 11 of the brief appellants provide arguments as to why
the limitations common to claims 5, 14 and 21 are not obvious over Teper and
Strandberg. Accordingly, we will address these claims as grouped by appellants’
arguments.
Rejection of claims 1, 6, 9 through 11, 15 through 18,
and 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants argue, on page 5 of the brief, that the claim term GUID must be
given its plain meaning as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants assert:
The term “GUID” is a well-known term of art among those of
ordinary skill. As previously explained to the Examiner, its plain meaning
can be clearly established referencing e.g. the following excerpt of its
definition from the well-known website Webopedia, which states
Short for Globally Unique Identifier, … to identify a particular
component, application, file, database entry, and/or user.
For instance, a Web site may generate a GUID and assign it
to a user’s browser to record and track the session. A GUID
is also used … to identify COM, DLLs … Windows also
identifies user accounts by a username (computer/domain
and username) and assigns it a GUID. Some database
administrators even will use GUIDs as primary key values in
databases.
GUIDs can be created in a number of ways, but usually they are a
combination of a few unique settings based on specific point
of time (e.g., an IP address, network MAC address, clock
data/time, etc.). (Underlining added by appellants)
Further, on page 6 of the brief, appellants provide the following explanation and
argument:
Thus in the context of user identifiers, a GUID uniquely identifies a
user globally, across ALL systems/services, like AOL, Yahoo, MSN,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007