Appeal No. 97-0203
Application No. 08/162,893
therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F. 2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342,
344 (CCPA 1968).
We do, however, reach the opposite conclusion with
respect to dependent claims 12-18. We note that the relevant
portion of dependent claim 12, upon which claims 13-16 further
depend, recites:
comprising a conveyor controller
having a photocoupler coupled to
said control computer by an optical
fiber, said conveyor controller
controlling movement of said
conveyor belt.
In addressing this claim limitation, the Examiner generally
points to the various position controllers along the conveyor
belt in White. Our review of White, however, does not reveal
any such conveyor controller. To the contrary, the disclosure
of White at column 4, lines 37-52 indicates the intention to
provide synchronization between the package to be inspected
and the package inspection system independent of conveyor
movement. Further, we agree with Appellants that even
assuming, arguendo, that disclosure of a conveyor controller
could be inferred from the teachings of White, there remains
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007