Appeal 2007-1517
Application 09/726,973
(Specification 3-4, ¶ [0009]).
While not providing literal support, we nevertheless find the recited
language “assigning a unique ID to each device” is adequately supported by
the disclosed unique user identity that is linked to the personal computer
(PC) used to access the host web site (id.). For example, if two individuals
use different computers to access a web site, and each user has a unique user
ID that is linked to their own computer, then a unique ID has effectively
been assigned (i.e., linked) to each computer (i.e., device). For at least the
aforementioned reasons, we find sufficient detail has been disclosed in the
Specification to satisfy the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
Obviousness
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 13, and
15-17 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Mitchell in view of
Haitsuka. Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have
treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Mitchell discloses using cookies to store identification codes
representing user IDs (Mitchell 6, para. [0049]). The Examiner contends
that Haitsuka teaches “assign[ing] a unique ID (e.g. cookie) to each device
among a plurality of device used for presenting the personalized information
(col. 2, lines 64-67, col. 3, lines 1-3, 11-20)” (Answer 6) and that a “cookie
is inherently known to contain user or device information.” (Id.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013