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