Appeal No. 1998-0252
Application No. 08/555,795
basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See, for
example, In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Considering further the teachings of
Barber, which actually was cited only with regard to a
limitation added by claim 15, does not alleviate the
deficiencies in the other references.
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined
teachings of the admitted prior art, Colavito, and Barber fail
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to
the subject matter of independent claim 11, and we will not
sustain the rejection of that claim or of claims 15-17, which
depend therefrom.
The Rejections Of The File Label System Claims
We reach the opposite conclusion with regard to claims 1,
3, 4, 9 and 10. The rejections advanced by the examiner in
this regard are that claims 1, 3, 4 and 9 are unpatentable
over Colavito, and claim 10 is unpatentable over Colavito and
Barber. These claims are directed to a file label system for
identifying a file associated with a specific individual. As
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007