Appeal No. 2006-0927
Application No. 09/949,488
show a HTTP request, and this is admitted by appellants (reply
brief-page 2), but appellants are arguing that Gabber does not show
or suggest adding or appending information (user context
information) to an HTTP request. It is appellants’ position that
Gabber only removes, or filters, information from HTTP headers and
“removing” or “filtering” does not constitute “adding.”
We agree with the examiner’s rationale, at pages 7-8 of the
answer, citing column 6, lines 5-11 of Gabber. From column 5, line
58, through column 6, line 11, of Gabber, it is described that the
substitute identifiers are indirectly provided by a central proxy
system 110a to a server site 110g and that site-specific substitute
identifiers are provided. Some of the executable routines provided
by the central proxy system are a transmission of the substitute
identifiers to server site 110g and a removal (and/or substitution)
of portions of the browsing commands that would identify user site
105a to server site 110g. Thus, it would appear that, at least
indirectly, the substitute identifiers are added to the HTTP
request. Note again that we interpret “adding” to mean that the
substitute identifiers were not in the HTTP request before and now
they are. That, in our estimation, constitutes an “addition” even
though other information, for which these identifiers are
substituted, may be removed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007