Appeal No. 2002-1717 Page 9
Application No. 09/089,153
distinctions over the prior art."); In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019,
1022, 201 USPQ 658, 661 (CCPA 1979) (arguments must first be
presented to the Board).
Appellant further argues (brief, page 8) that the claimed
distance detection system is not disclosed by Gauthier because
“the distance measuring system in Gauthier has limitations in how
accurate it can measure the distance from behind the trailer to
an object such as the loading dock.” In support of this
assertion, appellant contrasts the language of claim 6 of the
reference, which recites detecting “the presence of an object
within ten feet of a portion of said vehicle,” with the purported
capability of the claimed invention to “measure the distance
between the trailer and an object within fractions of an inch.”
While we find that the language of the reference pertains to
the range, not the accuracy, of the distance sensors, the
examiner correctly states (answer, page 6): “Regardless of
Gauthier’s limitations as to how far he is able to measure, there
is no mention within the appellant’s claims as to the precise
measurement of distance.” Although claim language should be read
in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art, In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983), limitations are not to be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007