Appeal 2007-1517
Application 09/726,973
Appellants argue Haitsuka does not inherently disclose that a cookie
contains device information (Br. 8).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner contends that the rejection is
based on the interpretation that Haitsuka’s “cookie” is the unique ID in the
same manner that Appellants’ “cookie” provides the unique ID assigned to
each device, as the Examiner contends Appellants have argued (Answer 12-
13).
After carefully considering all of the evidence before us, we find that
we need not reach the issue of inherency to decide this appeal. The Supreme
Court has recently reaffirmed that “[s]ection 103 forbids issuance of a patent
when ‘the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
Here, Haitsuka explicitly discloses that “Cookies are computer-
specific, not user-specific.” (Haitsuka, col. 3, ll. 14-15). Also, as noted by
Appellants (Reply Br. 7), Haitsuka explains that “[c]ookies can be used by a
web server to customize pages for a user’s browser type” (col. 3, ll. 11-13).
We understand this to mean that a single user who uses two computers
having different types of browsers will have different cookies stored on each
computer. Thus, we find that Haitsuka would have suggested to a person
having ordinary skill in the art that a cookie could have been made
“computer-specific” by including within the cookie’s data a unique ID
assigned to a device (i.e., computer). We note the primary Mitchell
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013