Appeal No. 2000-0431 Page 8
Application No. 08/789,127
Independent claims 8, 29, and 31 specify in pertinent part
similar limitations.
Here, the limitations of claims 8, 22, 29, and 31 leave us
in a quandary as to what the claims specify. We fail to grasp
how the claimed robot can be moved “by a prescribed pitch” when
the prescribed pitch is not determined until a latter step of the
claim. In addition, the appellants’ specification states that
“[s]ide following sensors 8a to 8d detect the distance up to a
wall when the robot moves straight along a wall located on its
side.” (Spec. at 13.) We are uncertain how the robot can
“measur[e] a distance up to an obstacle in the X direction,” as
claimed, without having first moved straight along the obstacle.
Accordingly, we find that one skilled in the art would not
understand the bounds of the claims when read in light of the
specification. Therefore, we reject claim 8 and claims 9 and 10,
which depend therefrom; claim 22 and claims 23-25, which depend
therefrom; claim 29 and claim 30, which depends therefrom; and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007