Appeal No. 2004-0348
Application No. 09/901,220
recited in the present claims are of a known structure, which is
described in the present specification as filed . . ." (page 2 of
Brief, last paragraph).
Appealed claims 54 and 59-65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wiholm in view of Gillotte.
Claims 55 and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the stated combination of references in further
view of Feiler.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. As a result, with the
exception of appealed claim 65, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed
subject matter which has not been adequately rebutted by
appellants. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 54-56 and 59-64, but we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claim 65.
Appellants do not make the argument that it would have been
nonobvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
folder of Wiholm by incorporating the electromagnetic receiver 20
of Gillotte. Rather, it is appellants' contention that Wiholm
does not disclose "a document storage container or file folder in
the conventional sense; that is, a container for holding a loose
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007