Appeal No. 95-3071
Application No. 08/028,013
order to permit an integration means to increase the target to
clutter ratio, as claimed.
The examiner somehow equates either the best path to a
final destination or the desired destination, or view thereof,
in Lawton to the claimed target centering. However, there is
no discussion in Lawton regarding target centering and, to the
extent the examiner is reading the focus of Lawton on the
final destination as somehow centering a target, we disagree.
There is absolutely no indication in Lawton that the target,
or final destination, is kept centered in the image, as
claimed, and it is unclear, even giving the term “centering
the target” its broadest possible meaning, how the examiner
interprets Lawton’s best path to a final destination as
“centering the target.”
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
1, 2, 4, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Turning now to the rejection of claims 6, 7, 14 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Lawton, we also will
not sustain this rejection. Whether or not it would have been
obvious to employ an integrator, of the specific form recited
in claims 6, 7, 14 and 15, in Lawton, Lawton clearly fails to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007