Appeal No. 98-1287
Application 08/359,706
Wells discloses the entire subject matter of appellants' Claim 1 except for the flashing of the light emitter
and calculating the difference of image signals. ("Wells discloses items A [the telescope] and B [the
solid state image sensor]" -- Brief at 7.)
Appellants refer to Figs. 4a through 4c of Wells on page 7 of the Brief, and submit arguments
concerning alleged differences. However, the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of
appellants' Claim 1. Moreover, appellants do not address the clear indication at column 8, lines 64 et
seq. of Wells -- "[T]he operator may allow incorporated servo-drive mechanisms within the instrument
to accomplish such alignment automatically upon direction of data from CCD device indicating the
displacement of the focussed laser target image 49 from the centrrix [sic, centric] of sensor 47.”
Turning again to the examiner’s rejection, the examiner relies on McClenahan for disclosure of
the "on-off arrangement," and points in particular to column 9, lines 17-35. The examiner states, “it is
well known in the measuring art to obtain a difference between the on signal and the off signal of a
flashing light that is illuminating a target so as to provide the cancellation of background noise allowing
for an accurate output result.” (Answer at 5.)
McClenahan discloses a vehicle wheel alignment system that includes “sensor units” 19 (Figs. 1
and 3). With reference to Fig. 10 of McClenahan, each “sensor unit” includes an emitter (light emitting
diode) 25, an optional filter 53, a mask 33, and a sensor (CCD) 29. Mask 33 contains slits 35 (see
also Fig. 7), which cause light from LED 25 to fall on different areas of CCD 29, dependent upon the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007