Appeal No. 95-3071
Application No. 08/028,013
stating that the means for centering “comprises...” or
“further comprise...” has been omitted) and appellants have
not contested this rejection. As such, we find that claim 9
fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim from
which it depends. Therefore, claim 9 is an improper dependent
claim within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 10 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), we will not sustain this rejection
because Lawton clearly does not disclose or otherwise teach
all of the claimed subject matter.
Independent claims 1 and 10 require, inter alia,
detection of a moving target and centering the target to
permit an integrating means to increase the target to clutter
ratio.
Lawton is directed to a machine vision method and
apparatus which permits a robot to determine movement in a 2-
dimensional field of view and follow a path to an intended
target. Therefore, unlike the instant claimed invention,
Lawton is not concerned with a moving target. In Lawton, the
target remains stationary and the robot moves. Further, we
find no evidence in Lawton of any centering of a target in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007