Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
After reviewing Christian, we find that the Examiner
presents sufficient evidentiary support to establish a prima
facie case of anticipation. In Figure 9, Christian shows a
plurality of cameras, each having a field of view corresponding
to a portion of the moving area of the robot. In particular,
Christian shows cameras 1 and 2 providing images of two fields of
view that together cover the entire moving area of the robot from
two parallel but different directions extending perpendicularly
downward from the location of each camera (col. 12, lines 35-47).
Therefore, we do not agree with Appellant that Christian’s
multiple overhead cameras do not provide images of the entire
moving area as the claim does not require that each single image
cover the entire moving area.
Christian also discloses a method for navigating multiple
robots using both a stored position and an identified location of
a robot to which another robot is ordered to move (col. 32, line
52 through col. 33, line 24). Thus, the Examiner has properly
corresponded the identified location of the first robot as the
position of a visible target within the moving area to which
another robot is navigated after the first robot moves away from
its particular identified location. We remain unpersuaded by
Appellant’s argument that the claimed “visible target” differs
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007