Appeal No. 2006-1492
Application No. 09/884,489
specifically indicating the abstract, Figure 3, column 2, lines
35-56, and column 5, line 34 through column 6, line 38. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have
incorporated the history recording inclusion and exclusion of
Janis in order to improve SurfSmart “so that only history
recording desired by the user was saved as is taught by Janis in
col. 2 lines 24-56” (answer-page 5).
We have reviewed the examiner’s rationale, as well as the
disclosures of the applied references, and the arguments of
appellants and we conclude that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claims 1-5, 8-10,
20, 24-28, 31-33, and 43. Accordingly, we will sustain the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Taking independent claim 1 as exemplary, we find that
SurfSmart does describe a method for disabling a collection of
history information on a browser by receiving a user input. This
is borne out at page 3 of the reference wherein it is disclosed
that “you can just delete these files to clear your browsing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007