Appeal 2007-0986
Application 10/214,370
With respect to claim 8, the use of RF receivers on the file folders
would have been suggested by Wakura because he expressly teaches that the
transmitters and receivers are not limited to infrared (col. 6, ll. 35 to 38).
The obviousness rejections of claims 13 to 24 and 52 are reversed
because the applied references neither teach nor would have suggested to the
skilled artisan polling the file folders, and updating the database based on the
reply to the poll.
With respect to claims 25 to 27 and 53, the teachings of Carroll would
have suggested to the skilled artisan to keep a record of the last user to
access a file in Wakura for record keeping purposes, and to know the
location of the file.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As indicated supra, the obviousness of the claimed subject matter set
forth in claims 1 to 12, 28 to 51, and 54 is demonstrated by the teachings of
Wakura considered alone. The obviousness of the claimed subject matter set
forth in claims 25 to 27 and 53 is demonstrated by the combined teachings
of Wakura and Carroll. The obviousness of the claimed subject matter set
forth in claims 13 to 24 and 52 has not been demonstrated by the teachings
of the applied references.
DECISION
The obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 54 are affirmed as to claims
1 to 12, 25 to 51, 53, and 54, and are reversed as to claims 13 to 24 and 52.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013