Appeal No. 1997-2981
Application No. 08/161,304
surfaces nor that Pryor discloses the use of bar codes and
orientation codes to assist a robot in picking up or
maneuvering a part properly. However, appellant argues that
Pryor does not disclose attaching any code to the part which
contains information related to the determined contour of the
part. We disagree. If Pryor identifies a part, which it
clearly must for the robot to know what part is being
maneuvered, then since a given part has a given contour, it
can be reasonably stated that the contour of that part is
known. While the computer program in the robot need not
identify which part is which [column 13, lines 33-34], the bar
code part type is indicative of the part and, hence, its
contour. Thus, the marking contains information, even if only
implicitly, related to the existing contour of the object.
Appellant argues that Pryor discloses the placement of a
bar code or orientation code on the part surface “before” any
action is taken with respect to the part. Even if true, it is
not clear how this is precluded by the instant claim language.
With regard to dependent claim 46, this claim merely
requires the contour to be “three dimensional.” Since the
parts in Pryor and the lumber in Idelsohn are clearly three
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007