Appeal No. 1996-3084
Application 08/168,167
transponder 112. Relative position is obviously taught within
35 U.S.C. § 103 in Juengel in the manner claimed based upon
the selectability or non-selectability of an individual tool
bit as it rotates around past the transceiver 114.
We reach an opposite conclusion and reverse the rejection
of independent claim 17 and its dependent claim 18 since this
method claim goes beyond a mere determination of relative
position of the robotic hand assembly to include the
adjustment of the relative position based upon the return
signal from the transponder at the transceiver. Even in view
of the examiner's arguments with respect to the adjustability
feature, Juengel is silent as to utilizing any signals
received by the transceiver 114 from the transponder 112 for
relative position adjustments.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1 through 16, but reverse the rejection of claims 17
and 18. Therefore, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-
in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007