Appeal 2007-2167
Application 09/991,752
Appellant argues that Gupta ‘079 uses the User Meta-data which is a
single source for storing and accessing the user information (Br. 6).
According to Appellant, Gupta ‘079 does not access a second location for
the purpose of identifying the user, as recited in claim 1 (id.). Appellant
further asserts that such recitation is absent in Gupta ‘258 since the terms
“user identity” and “determining an identity of a user” are absent in the
reference (Br. 7).
We agree with the Examiner that the wrappers look into multiple
secondary sources for information pertaining to the user in order to fill the
purchase order forms (FF 5-9). The wrappers extract information based on
the user’s order or selection, which in turn, relates to the user’s information
needed to fill the form (FF 1-3). In that regard, the relationships relied on
for extracting the user information include the user identity which, in turn,
determines what specific information about the user is needed (FF 4).
Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s assertion that a second location is not
searched for the purpose of determining a user’s identity or additional
information (Reply Br. 3), the information obtained by the wrapper from the
vendors’ sites relate to the user information and identifies the user from the
prior relationship with those venders (FF 8-10).
Although not explained in so many words, the Examiner’s position is
that the wrapper looks at other sites for the user identification information if
the first site or the User Meta-data fails to provide all the necessary
information for filling the order form. As such, determining the identity of
the user prior to extracting the user information is implied since the user
information is extracted only after identifying the user. The user may be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013