Appeal No. 1998-0678
Application No. 08/411,299
2 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 3 falls with independent claim 1 as it is not
separately argued. Similarly, claims 4-6 and 8 will fall with
independent claim 1 because, while appellants attempt to make a
showing of arguing these claims separately, at page 7 of the
brief, closer analysis of these “arguments” reveals that
appellants’ position is merely a general statement that there
are “differences” between Diner and the instant invention and
between Burgess and the instant invention. However, no
specifics regarding the alleged differences are set forth by
appellants. Accordingly, since no specific arguments are made
directed to the
merits of claims 3-6 and 8, we will not sustain the rejection
of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Finally, we turn to claim 7. This claim depends from
independent claim 1 through claim 3 and recites specifics of
the image information being graphical and “determined by
measurements of position and attitude of either vision system.”
Appellants clearly argue, at page 8 of the brief, that whereas
the instant invention uses position and attitude to properly
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007