Appeal No. 1998-2753
Application No. 08/740,887
Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).
To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole
or from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.
See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
The appellants’ invention is directed to target
detection, seeking and guidance systems for missiles that are
launched against targets. According to the opening page of
the specification, prior systems have tracked targets either
in a single or a few spectral bands, thus opening the door to
the effective use of countermeasures that prevent such systems
from acquiring and/or tracking the target. The appellants
further point out that the powers of discrimination of these
prior art systems were such that they could inadvertently
target friendly targets. The appellants’ invention is based
upon the principle that targets have hyperspectral signatures
that are formed from literally hundreds of spectra, which the
inventive system determines and utilizes.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007