Appeal No. 2006-0927
Application No. 09/949,488
information is “context information,” as claimed, and it is added
to the HTTP header after other information is removed. Thus, it is
the examiner’s position that “adding substitute information
identifiers reads on the claimed feature of adding user context
information to the request” (answer-page 8).
The examiner also points out that Gabber discloses a HTTP get-
request at column 11, line 4.
For their part, appellants argue that Gabber’s substituted
identifier is not user context information, as claimed, because the
instant claims require that the context information is not
substituted for other information but, rather, is “added” to the
HTTP request (principal brief-page 3; reply brief-page 2).
Moreover, argue appellants, “Gabber’s substitution is enacted
on a browser command but not on an HTTP request” (principal brief-
page 3).
While we understand the difference between the instant
invention and that disclosed by Gabber, we must look to the
specific instant claim language to determine if the subject matter
recited therein is anticipated by Gabber. “The name of the game
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007