Appeal No. 2006-1492
Application No. 09/884,489
While appellants argue (principal brief-page 13) that
HistoryKill makes no reference to identification of sessions
based on the selected user identification,” it is clear to us
that HistoryKill does teach this since a single, or complete
session may constitute an “identification of sessions.” If there
is only one session, then that session has been identified.
At page 3 of the reply brief, appellants argue that
independent claims 1, 16, 24, 39, 43, and 45 include collecting
history information on a browser “for multiple browser sessions,
such as different times/dates, for each identified user.” We
find no such limitation of “multiple browser sessions” in these
claims. Arguments directed to non-claimed limitations are not
persuasive of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter. The
instant claims do not appear to preclude a single browser
session, as described by HistoryKill.
With regard to the rejection of claims 18, 19, 23, 41, 42,
and 46, based on HistoryKill, alone, appellants argue (principal
brief-page 17) that HistoryKill does not teach or suggest that an
identified user may select a domain from a list of identified
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007