Appeal No. 96-2573
Application No. 08/331,168
We agree with the examiner that, for the most part,
appellants’ arguments are not directed to any specific claim
limitations in order to distinguish over Chandler. However,
appellants do argue, at page 17 of the brief, that, with
regard to Chandler,
[n]o teaching or suggestion of a “means for
adjusting a second resampling frequency in
accordance with [a] height signal” is disclosed
and that
Chandler does not disclose or suggest the provision
of a signal responsive to the frequency shifted
optical target signal for indicating acquisition of
the target, nor does it disclose or suggest any
means for acquiring said optical target signal in
accordance with said frequency shifted optical
target signal [Emphasis in the original].
We are in agreement with these arguments by appellants.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007