Appeal No. 2006-2418
Application No. 09/973,412
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
Regarding independent claims 39 and 47, the examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Owensby teaches every claimed feature except for (1) associating each of the
plurality of unique IP addresses with geographic locations, and (2) providing unique
content to a mobile user when the IP address is based on the location-specific unique
content [answer, pages 5 and 6]. The examiner cites Heddaya as disclosing such
features and finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to implement the offloaded customization concepts of Heddaya
into Owensby's method and apparatus to customize content and render such content
unique in accordance with the intermediate node's location [answer, pages 6 and 7].
According to the examiner, such a combination would reduce response time and
decrease network traffic by distributing servicing of requests across multiple
intermediate servers [answer, page 8].
Appellant argues that the examiner did not establish a proper motivation to
combine the references [brief, page 7]. Appellant notes that the examiner's motivation
to combine Owensby and Heddaya does not create the advantage stated by the
examiner [brief, page 8]. Although appellant acknowledges that the intermediate server
in Heddaya customizes the document that is sent to the client, appellant notes that such
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007