Appeal 2007-3518
Application 10/995,295
to the state of the communication between the client and server machines.
While we note that Meyer’s context information (briefly described in Meyer
column 5 lines 5-25 as including session information) is similar to state
information, we do not find that Meyer teaches that the context information
includes the identifier. Additionally, Meyer teaches that the identifier
travels with the media file, thus it is not clear why one would separate the
identifier to be stored in a cookie file. (Fact 4).
Thus, we do not find that the combination of Meyer and Montulli
teaches or fairly suggests storing (with respect to claim 7, transmitting a
stored) cookie that contains an contents identifier read from a storage
medium that contains both content and a contents identifier as claimed in
independent claims 4 and 7.
CONCLUSION
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 4 and 7. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 4 through 10, and 16 through 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
However, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, and 11 through 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e).
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013