Appeal No. 2006-0927
Application No. 09/949,488
is the claim”- quote from Judge Giles Rich. In re Hiniker, 150
F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The claim language at issue is “adding the user context
information to the HTTP request.” If the substitute identifier in
Gabber is “user context information,” and it is “added,” it appears
to make no difference at all whether other information, for which
Gabber’s identifier has been substituted, has been deleted.
Clearly, the substitute identifier in Gabber is “user context
information” because appellants themselves define this term to
include “information such as a user’s identity and location”
(principal brief-page 1), and the substitute identifier in Gabber
is information about a user’s identity or location. That is, the
substitute identifier in Gabber “identifies” the user while keeping
specific information about the user confidential, or anonymous.
This substitute identifier in Gabber is “added,” as claimed,
because while it is not in addition to the information which has
been deleted, it is still added in the sense that the substitute
identifier was not there before.
The only issue now is whether this substitute identifier in
Gabber is added to the HTTP request. Clearly, Gabber does, indeed,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007