Appeal 2007-2167
Application 09/991,752
identified, as described by Gupta ‘079, based on the order while the wrapper
determines the identity of the user prior to extracting additional information
(FF 10). The wrapper further retrieves additional information pertaining to
the user by obtaining the information related to the user’s order such as the
vendor info, user identity, etc. (FF 11).
With respect to claim 12, Appellant provides similar arguments
discussed and addressed above (Br. 10). In particular, Appellant asserts that
determining the identity of a user is neither taught nor suggested by the prior
art (id.). As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the user data is
extracted only if the user is identified. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that the user information is obtained by the wrapper after
searching the User Meta-data and is based on identifying the user.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Because Appellant has failed to point to any error in the Examiner’s
position, we sustain the § 103 rejection with respect to independent claims 1
and 12 as well as claims 2-11 and 13-20, which are argued either together
with claim 1 or merely based on the same reasons discussed in relation with
their base claims (Br. 5 & 8). Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1-20 over Gupta ‘079 and Gupta ‘258.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013