Ex Parte Siegel et al - Page 7


                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