Appeal No. 2006-2418
Application No. 09/973,412
customization is not made unique according to the location of the intermediate server
[id.].
The examiner responds that since (1) Owensby discloses providing localized
information to a wireless terminal via the internet, and (2) Heddaya provides localized
information using URLs and TCP/IP, the skilled artisan would be motivated to seek
more detailed disclosures regarding presenting internet content to a wireless terminal
[answer, page 13].
Appellant also argues that the examiner's combination of references renders
Heddaya unsuitable for its intended purpose [brief, page 9]. According to appellant,
customizing content in accordance with the location of the intermediate node would
vitiate Heddaya's purpose of providing proxy intermediate nodes that spoof the client
into believing that the proxy is the desired server [id.]. Appellant notes that once the
content diverges between the various nodes, the mobile agent of Heddaya would no
longer know how to intercept messages and reroute requests to the closest server [id.;
reply brief, pages 4 and 5]. The examiner responds that Heddaya is not limited to such
spoofing techniques and is well suited for its intended purpose of associating IP
addresses with unique content and providing location-specific content [answer, page
14].
Appellant argues that the references do not disclose establishing a plurality of
unique IP addresses from each of which unique content may be accessed as claimed
[brief, page 10]. Appellant emphasizes that the mere mention of the internet or TCP/IP
in various passages within the references hardly teaches or suggests the claimed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007