Appeal No. 2000-0431 Page 13
Application No. 08/789,127
Because using the two-phased operation of Bancroft with the
robots of Kawakami or Nakamura would have eliminated a need for
operator assistance, would have enabled a quick determination if
the robot was going to stay in a desired area, and would have
provided efficient coverage of a cleaning area, we find that the
prior art as a whole would have suggested combining teachings of
the references.
Second, the appellants argue, “neither Kawakami nor Bancroft
teach a system which covers an entire accessible surface of the
floor.” (Appeal Br. at 35.) They similarly argue, “neither
Nakamura nor Bancroft teach a system which covers an entire
accessible surface of the floor.” (Id. at 57.)
“Generally, . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.”
DeGeorge v. Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1322 n.3, 226 USPQ 758,
761 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In particular, “[t]he preamble of a
claim does not limit the scope of the claim when it merely states
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007