Ex Parte Siegel et al - Page 8


                 Appeal 2007-1517                                                                                  
                 Application 09/726,973                                                                            
                 reference teaches the use of cookies to store a user ID such that user systems                    
                 are automatically recognized, even when the user does not log in (Mitchell                        
                 6, ¶ [0049], ll. 1-8).  Thus, we find that Haitsuka’s teaching of computer-                       
                 specific cookies would have further improved Mitchell’s system by                                 
                 providing the enhanced capability of uniquely distinguishing computers (in a                      
                 manner either independent of or in association with a user ID). Accordingly,                      
                 we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 as being                               
                 unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Haitsuka.                                                   
                       Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal                        
                 with respect to the remaining claims in this group on the basis of the selected                   
                 claim alone.  Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims                       
                 2, 4-7, 13, and 15-17 as being unpatentable over Mitchell in view of                              
                 Haitsuka for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to representative                      
                 claim 1.                                                                                          
                                     Dependent claims 3, 8-12, 14, and 18                                          
                       We further note that Appellants have not presented any substantive                          
                 arguments directed separately to the patentability of dependent claims                            
                 3, 8-12, 14, and 18.  In the absence of a separate argument with respect to                       
                 the dependent claims, those claims stand or fall with the representative                          
                 independent claim.  See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089,                           
                 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).                              
                 Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as being                           
                 unpatentable over Mitchell in view of Haitsuka and Subramonian.  We will                          
                 also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-12 as being unpatentable                        
                 over Mitchell in view of Haitsuka and Official Notice.  Likewise, we will                         


                                                        8                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013