Appeal No. 2006-1492
Application No. 09/884,489
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to the rejection of independent claims 1, 20,
24, and 43, it is the examiner’s position that SurfSmart teaches,
at page 3, receiving user input and responsive to that input,
disabling the history recording processes associated with the
browser.
The examiner recognized that SurfSmart does not teach that
the user input is the entry of a selected user identification,
but the examiner turns to page 1 of HistoryKill for such a
teaching. The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to modify SurfSmart with this teaching of HistoryKill because it
would have been “desirable to have used the user identification
of HistoryKill to have personalized the disabling of history
recording processes for each user of SurfSmart” (answer-page 4).
The examiner also recognized that SurfSmart does not teach
that a session is identified based on the selected user
identification, but turns to Janis for such a teaching,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007