Appeal No. 2006-0927
Application No. 09/949,488
The examiner does not mention in the statement of the
rejection exactly what portion of Gabber he is relying on for the
claim limitations “receiving an HTTP request from the user for
information from a Web server;” and “adding the user context
information to the HTTP request,” and it is the “adding the user
context information to the HTTP request” which is argued by
appellants as distinguishing over Gabber.
Thus, the issue before us is whether Gabber does, indeed,
disclose “adding the user context information to the HTTP request,”
as claimed.
The examiner contends that Gabber does disclose this
limitation because Gabber is interested in receiving customized web
page responses while allowing the user to remain anonymous to that
web site (taught in the Abstract of Gabber). In achieving this
function, Gabber is said by the examiner to receive requests for
web information from a browser and include/add substitute
identifiers to the HTTP headers of the request received from the
browser, identifying column 6, lines 5-11, of Gabber.
The examiner reasons that although the substitute identifier
in Gabber replaces information in the HTTP header, this substitute
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007