Appeal No. 1998-0995
Application 08/387,298
of the invention.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087,
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996) citing W.L.
Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
On pages 6 and 7 of the brief and pages 3 through 7 of the reply brief, Appellant
argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a time period in which there is no change
in the amount of reflected light from the bar codes nor changing a mirror vibration angle by
stepwisely decreasing the scanning region in response to such a determination. Appellant
points out that Appellant's claim 6 recites
determining means for determining a time period in which there is no
change in the amount of the reflected light, and . . . vibration angle adjuster
means [which] stepwisely decreases the angle of vibration of the vibrating
mirror in order to stepwisely decrease the scanning region for the bar codes
when said determining means determines said time period to be longer than
a first predetermined value.
Appellant further points out that claim 10, the other independent claim, recites
detecting a time period in which there is no change in the amount of the
reflected light when the scanning beam is scanning the bar codes wherein
when said time period is longer than a first predetermined value.
Appellant further points out that claim 10 recites an additional step which includes
decreasing the angle of vibration of the vibrating mirror so as to stepwisely
decrease the scanning region for the bar codes.
Upon our careful review of Bianco we fail to find that Bianco teaches a determining
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007