Appeal No. 2002-2258
Application No. 09/134,977
documents at the bottom of page 13 of the answer where he repeats
his urging that a control document is a sheet as discussed
according to column 2, lines 11 through 47 of Baker in his
assessment of the prior art, as well as an “electronic document”
that Baker appears to discuss according to his specific
teachings.
Baker’s discussion of prior art control documents at
column 2 is consistent with appellant’s usage of the term in
the disclosed and claimed invention as well as appellant’s own
assessment of the prior art. Baker’s column 2 discussion
indicates that a control document is transported from station
to station of an inserter system where, at selected stations
therein, pre-printed inserts may be accumulated with the control
document where eventually the entire accumulated set is inserted
into a preformed envelope.
On the other hand, Baker’s own approach is not consistent
with this in the sense of utilizing a tangible, physical control
document. Consistent with the examiner’s apparent view of
Baker’s specific teachings or contribution in the art relating to
electronic control documents, the rejection cannot be sustained
because of the earlier-noted requirements of the claims on
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007