Appeal 2007-1992
Application 09/318,447
sending the updated account provides the identifier to the client
information to the server system system.
whereby the user does not need to
log in to the server system when
ordering the item, but needs to log in
to the server system when changing
previously supplied account
information.
4. Claim 108 on appeal differs from Hartman patent claim 13 in that it
includes the following limitations:
• persistently storing the client identifier at the client system;
• the client identifier identifying account information previously
supplied by a user of the client system wherein the user does not need
to log in to the server system when ordering the item;
• when account information is to be changed,
coordinating the log in of the user to the server system;
receiving updated account information; and
sending the updated account information to the server system; and
• whereby the user does not need to log in to the server system
when ordering the item, but needs to log in to the server system when
changing previously supplied account information.
5. The Examiner did not address all the differences between claim 108
on appeal and Hartman claim 13.
C. Principles of Law
1. A one-way determination of obviousness is needed to resolve the
issue of double patenting where the application at issue is the later filed
application. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1432, 46 USPQ2d 1226,
1229 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
2. “‘Generally, an obviousness-type double patenting analysis entails
two steps. First, as a matter of law, a court construes the claim in the earlier
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013