Appeal No. 1998-0728
Application 08/468,231
OPINION
The issue is whether the combination of Evans and Caimi
discloses or suggests the claimed "height correction means."
The claims will stand or fall together with claim 1.
While the Examiner's statement of the rejection (FR3-4;
EA5) indicates that Evans has a height correction means, the
Examiner admits in response to the arguments that Evans does
not disclose the height correction means of claim 1, but
reasons as follows (FR7-8; EA9-10):
The examiner agrees with the applicant that Evans Jr.
does not disclose the height correction means as recited
in the claim. However, Evans Jr. clearly discloses
height measuring means (column 9, line 5 [to] column 10,
line 68) to measure the height of the obstacle in front
of a robot. Evans jr. [sic], further discloses the means
for measuring the depression or hole in the floor surface
ahead of the robot by using the height measuring
algorithm as "Thus, range, bearing and elevation can be
measured from the pixel position" (column 12,
lines 19-22). Since the height calculating algorithm
using slope and coordinates of various points on
elevation are well known, determining a correct height of
a vehicle with respect to road surface is very obvious
and does not represent any patentably distinct concept in
light of the cited references.
Appellants note that claim 1 recites generating reference
data from a "light spot pattern projected upon a flat
supporting surface when sensing means is first mounted on a
vehicle without any load on board the vehicle," which initial
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007