Appeal No. 2004-0348
Application No. 09/901,220
collection of papers and documents,"1 but, rather, the reference
discloses a book binding method and apparatus. However, we agree
with the examiner that appellants' argument is not commensurate
in scope with the breadth of subject matter encompassed by
claim 54. Claim 54 on appeal does not define a storage container
or file folder which holds a loose collection of papers and
documents, but broadly embraces "document storage containers for
storing documents." Hence, although Wiholm permanently attaches
the individual sheets or documents into the folder with hot-melt
glue at the spine of the folder, appealed claim 54 fails to
recite any limitation which distinguishes over the permanently
attached documents in the folder of Wiholm.
Appellants also maintain that "[t]he Wiholm reference does
not include any folded seams or glued folded seams in which a
radio frequency identification tag may be embedded in the
document container stock as claimed in the present claim 54."2
However, as explained by the examiner, appellants' argument is
not germane to the subject matter defined by claim 54. Claim 54
does not require that the RFID tag be embedded in a folded seam,
but only requires that the RFID tag be embedded somewhere in the
1 Page 5 of Brief, last paragraph.
2 Page 6 of Brief, third paragraph.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007