Ex Parte Haines et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 5, 2012

09874104 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT E. HAINES, MARK A HARPER, and
KENLEY HINRICHS
____________

Appeal 2010-009616
Application 09/874,104
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before, JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI and,
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009616
Application 09/874,104

2

SUMMARY

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 15, 17-19, 20-23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S. C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention concerns uses of a remote computer to pool cookies
received by first and second web clients.
Claim 1 is illustrative.
1. A method of requesting a resource having a URL from a web server,
comprising:
a web client receiving input from a user defining the URL;
in response to receiving the user input, the web client automatically
transmitting a first request to a remote computer for a cookie that is valid for the
URL; then
the web client receiving a first cookie from the remote computer;
the web client transmitting both the first cookie and a request for the
resource to the web server;
the web client receiving the resource and a second cookie from the web
server; and
in response to receiving the second cookie, the web client transmitting the
second cookie to the remote computer for storage.

Appeal 2010-009616
Application 09/874,104

3

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over US 6,934,736 issued August 23, 2005 (Sears) in view of US
7,058,600 issued June 6, 2006 (Combar et al).
Claims 6, 8-11 and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over US 6,539,424 issued March 25, 2003 (Dutta) in view of US
6,748,420 issued June 8, 2004 (Quatrano et al).
Claims 15, 17 and 23 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quatrano in view of Combar.
Claims 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Quatrano in view of Combar and further in view of US 6,813,039 issued
November 2, 2004 (Silverbrook).

I. THE REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 5 AND 21 OVER SEARS AND
COMBAR

Appellants address the rejections of independent claims 1 and 21, and
dependent claims 3 and 5, as a group and we therefore treat them together, with
claim 1 being illustrative. The Examiner finds that Sears teaches the elements of
claim 1, except for explicit teachings of the web client receiving input from the
user defining the URL, the web client automatically transmitting the claimed first
request (to a remote computer for a cookie that is valid for the URL) in response to
receiving the user input, and the web client receiving the first resource and a
second cookie from the web server and in response to the second cookie

Appeal 2010-009616
Application 09/874,104

4

transmitting the second cookie to the remote computer for storage. (Ans. 6-7)1.
Citing column 7, lines 27-41 of Combar, the Examiner finds that Combar teaches a
client that includes a cookie in a request for content to a server and transmits a
newly-generated, unique cookie to the web server, a dispatch server or a cookie jar
server for storage. (Ans. 7).
Appellants contend that Combar (i) fails to teach the web client transmits the
second cookie to the remote computer (App. Br. 10); (ii) fails to teach the second
cookie is transmitted to the remote computer for storage (App. Br. 10); and (iii)
fails to teach that web client transmits the second cookie in response to receiving
the second cookie. (App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 2).
Sears teaches a “cookie server” in which browser software on a client
computer consults a cookie list residing on a cookie server each time the browser is
about to issue a request for a web site. If the web site is included in the cookie list,
the cookie server sends the corresponding cookie to the client, which the client
then uses to access the web site. (Abstract; col. 9, ll. 4-11). Combar teaches an
integrated proxy interface for web based data management reports. In Combar, an
HTTPS request is associated with a logical session which is initiated and tracked
by a “cookie jar server” to generate a unique “cookie” that is sent to the client
along with each reply to the HTTPS request. (See, col. 7, ll. 27-41). The client
holds the cookie and returns it to the server as part of each subsequent HTTPS
request to authenticate each such request. (Id.)

1 Throughout we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 7, 2009, the
Examiner’s Answer mailed on Mar. 16, 2010 and Appellants’ Reply Brief filed on
April 30, 2010. We do not address Appellant’s Appeal Briefs filed on April 6,
2006 and October 13, 2008, since prosecution was reopened in response to each of
those Appeal Briefs.
Appeal 2010-009616
Application 09/874,104

5

We agree with Appellants’ contention that in Combar, the cookie is not
transmitted to the cookie jar server in response to receipt of the cookie by the web
client, but instead only with each subsequent HTTPS request, e.g., made by the
user. As Appellants note (App. Br. 11), Combar operates this way because the
purpose of retransmitting the cookie with a subsequent HTTPS request is
authentication, not storage. (Col. 7, ll. 32-41). Since all the elements of claim 1 are
not taught by the combination of the references, we reverse the rejection of claims
1, 3, 5 and 21 over the combination of Sears and Combar.

II. THE REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 6, 8-11, and 22 OVER DUTTA AND
QUANTRANO

Appellants address the rejections of independent claims 6 and 22 and
dependent claims 8-11 as a group. We therefore treat these claims together with
claim 6 being illustrative. The Examiner finds that Dutta teaches the elements of
claim 6, except (i) receiving a first request for a cookie from a second web client
different from the first WEB client, and (ii) transmitting the first cookie to the
second web client if the first URL is within the first range of URLs, the second
web client being adapted to transmit the first cookie to the web server, wherein the
computing device is different from the first and second web clients and the web
server. (Ans. 9-10, 13). The Examiner notes that in Dutta the server side cookie
storage receives from the client a cookie provided to the client by a content web
server. The cookie, which determines the pages (URLs) accessible to the client,
achieves the claimed function of a cookie that is valid for a range of URLs. (Ans.
13-14). The Examiner finds that Quatrano teaches sharing cookies among a group
Appeal 2010-009616
Application 09/874,104

6

of web clients in which a cookie transmitted to a first user may be transmitted to a
second user. (Ans. 10, 14).
Appellants contend that claim 6 recites that the web server provides the first
cookie to the web client, and the web client then provides the first cookie to the
computing device. (App. Br. 14). In contrast to the limitation in claim 6, Dutta
discloses only two actors (the web client and the content producer) involved in the
cookie transfers, i.e., the content producer who generated the cookie also receives
the cookie from the web client. (App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 3).
Dutta teaches a system to prevent users from bypassing a website’s home
page by “deep linking” to a sub-page of the website. (Abstract). In Dutta, a
content aggregator server directs a request from a web client to the content
producer, whose web server reroutes the request for the deep link to its home page.
(Col. 3, l. 66- col. 4, l. 17). A client side cookie defining access rights, etc. can be
sent between the content producer and the web client. (Col. 4, ll. 29-30). Dutta
discloses that to reduce the cookie storage requirements on the client, the server
can store the information in a database, so that the client need only send its
identifier to the content producer. (Col. 4, ll. 50-59). Although Dutta does not
specify whether this storage occurs at the aggregator or the content producer’s
server, the context of the disclosure suggests that Dutta intends the storage to be at
the content producer’s server. (Reply Br. 4). This appears to be the position taken
by Appellants with respect to Dutta concerning cookie transactions. (App. Br. 14,
Reply Br. 4).
More importantly, however, Appellants contend that in Dutta, the web client
requests a web page but Dutta does not teach the web client requesting a cookie.
(App. Br. 15). Claim 6 recites means for receiving at the computing device a first
request for a cookie that is valid for a first URL from a second web client different
Appeal 2010-009616
Application 09/874,104

7

from the first web client and a means for responding to that request by transmitting
the first cookie from the computing device to the second web client. We agree
with Appellants that there is no disclosure in Dutta of a web client requesting a
cookie, since Dutta teaches only a content producer transmitting a cookie on its
own accord, not in response to a request for a cookie. (App. Br. 15)
Appellants note that there is no cookie request taught by Quatrano, which
deals with a request to create or join a shared session. (App. Br. 16). Quatrano
teaches a method and apparatus for providing shared access to an application by
creating shared session identification information which can include shared session
cookies. (Col. 5, ll. 54-60). Since session identification information for both the
shared session and each participant is maintained in a collaboration adapter, there
is no need to copy and provide such information, such as cookies, to each
participant’s browser at each participant’s web client. (Col. 6, ll. 1-13). In response
to a request to join a session, the collaboration adapter forwards to the new
participant a copy of the previously obtained application response information
from application server 50 cached for the shared session to the web server, which
returns this page to the new participant. (See, e.g., Col. 15, ll. 14-17). The shared
session identification information may include one or more browser supplied
cookies (Col. 13, ll. 34-37), but not application specific cookies (Col. 14, ll. 54-
55). In any case, as Appellants correctly note, in Quatrano, the participant does not
request cookies, as recited in claim 6, but instead requests to participate in a shared
session, receiving from the collaboration adapter only those cookies the
collaboration adapter is configured to provide. (Col. 15, ll. 12-36). Since neither
Dutta nor Quatrano teaches receiving at the computing device a request for a
cookie from the second web client, we reverse the rejection of claims 6, 8-11 and
22.
Appeal 2010-009616
Application 09/874,104

8

III. THE REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 15, 17, and 23 OVER QUANTRANO
AND COMBAR

Appellants address the rejections of claim 15, 17 and 23 as a group and we
therefore treat them together with claim 15 being illustrative.
The Examiner finds that Quatrano discloses that when a participant makes
an HTTP request, a shared session is initiated and a cookie generated by an
application server is sent with the resource to the participant. (Ans. 15). The
Examiner finds that Quatrano teaches all the limitations of claim 15 except for (i)
the remote computer being operable to receive the first cookie from the first web
client and to then store the first cookie; and (ii) the remote computer being
operable to receive the second cookie from the second web client and to then store
the second cookie. (Ans. 7-8). The Examiner finds that Combar teaches that the
client includes the cookie in the request for content to the server and transmits the
newly generated unique cookie to a web server, dispatch server or cookie jar
server. (Id.). The Examiner finds that Combar teaches the claimed functionality.
According to the Examiner, Combar discloses a user's web-enabled client device
receiving a URL request input from the user, the user's web-enabled client device
receiving the resource and a cookie for each HTTPS request from the web/dispatch
server, and subsequently sending each cookie to a separate cookie jar server for
storage, since Combar explicitly states that the client holds the cookie and returns
it to the remote cookie jar server. (Id.)
Appellants contend that the Examiner does not clearly identify the elements
in Quatrano which correspond to the claimed first, second and remote computers.
(App. Br. 19). For reasons detailed in the Appeal Brief, Appellants further contend
that Quatrano does not teach the claimed limitation of receiving a cookie, e.g., the
shared session cookie in Quatrano, from a web server 30 and then automatically
Appeal 2010-009616
Application 09/874,104

9

transmitting that cookie to the application server 50. (App. Br. 20). Appellants
also contend, among other things, that because Combar teaches the client holding
the cookie until the next HTTPS request, there is no automatic transmission of the
cookie as recited in claim 15. (Reply Br. 7).
As we noted in our reversal of the rejection of claim 1, we agree that in
Combar, the cookie is not transmitted to the cookie jar server in response to receipt
of a cookie by a web client, but instead only with each subsequent HTTPS request,
e.g., a request made by the user. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that Combar
does not teach the claimed limitation of a web client operable to receive a cookie
and configured to automatically respond thereto by transmitting the cookie to the
remote computer and we therefore reverse the rejection of claims 15, 17 and 23.

IV. THE REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 18-20 OVER QUANTRANO AND
COMBAR AND SILVERBROOK

Appellants address the rejections of claim 18-20 as a group and we therefore
treat them together with claim 18 being illustrative. Claim 18 depends from claim
17, which in turn depends from claim 15. In view of our reversal of the rejection
of claims 15 and 17, we reverse the rejection of claim 18 and claims 19 and 20,
which depend from claim 18.

ORDER

The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sears in view of Combar is reversed.
The rejection of claims 6, 8-11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dutta in view of Quatrano et al is reversed.
Appeal 2010-009616
Application 09/874,104

10

The rejection of claims 15, 17 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quatrano in view of Combar is reversed.
The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Quatrano in view of Combar and further in view of Silverbrook is reversed.

REVERSED