Appeal No. 2004-0348
Application No. 09/901,220
document container stock. On this point, we agree with the
examiner that Gillotte discloses, or at least suggests, embedding
an RFID tag in some area on the folder. While the identification
receiver 20 of Gillotte may not be identical to the
identification tag used by appellants, we find that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the
admittedly known RFID tag disclosed by appellants.
As for separately argued claim 62, we agree with the
examiner that Wiholm discloses such a reinforced double-sided
file folder to the extent that the folder, by definition,
includes two sides. As for claim 63, we find that labeling the
container a "file box" fails to distinguish the claimed subject
matter over the file folder of Wiholm. We also concur with the
examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the folder of Wiholm in order to hold
removable x-ray film. As noted by the examiner, Gillotte
evidences that it was known in the art to use file folders to
store x-ray films and we are persuaded that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the
gluing taught by Wiholm when permanently securing the documents
is not desirable. It is well settled that it is a matter of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007