Appeal No. 1998-2753
Application No. 08/740,887
Claim 1 is representative of all four of the independent
claims. It requires a hyperspectral imaging system for
detecting a target having a predetermined hyperspectral
signature, means for enabling the missile to track the target
matching this signature, and means including a missile
controller for guiding the missile to intercept a target
matching the predetermined hyperspectral signature. All
three of the rejections set out by the examiner utilize Pinson
as the primary reference. Pinson discloses an optical target
detection, seeking and guidance system that appears, at best,
to be an example of the prior art systems over which the
appellants believe their system to be an improvement. In any
event, the examiner concedes that Pinson “does not disclose a
hyperspectral imaging system for detecting and tracking a
target having a hyperspectral signature” (Answer, page 4). It
is the examiner’s position, however, that each of the three
secondary references discloses a hyperspectral imaging system
for flight vehicles “that detects and tracks targets” (with
regard to Cutts, Answer, page 4), and that it therefore would
have been obvious to modify Pinson by replacing the disclosed
system with a hyperspectral one. The appellants argue that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007