Appeal No. 2000-2074
Application 09/178,070
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Briefs2 and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
I. OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We first address the rejection of claims 1-16 over
Katzenstein in view of Reitboeck and that which is known in the
art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In formulating the art rejection, the
Examiner has relied on Katzenstein for all the elements of
independent claim 1, except for the limitation of identifying
objects by counting the number of pulses transmitted. See page
4, lines 4-16 of Examiner’s Answer. The Examiner cited Reitboeck
2
2 Appellant filed an appeal brief on January 13, 2000, Paper
No. 16. Notice of defective brief was sent to Appellant on April
12, 2000, Paper No. 18. Appellant filed a Supplemental Appeal
Brief, Paper No. 20, May 6, 2000, in response to the notice.
Appellant also filed a Reply Brief, Paper No. 25, on November 29,
2001, in response to the Examiner’s Answer, Paper No. 21, mailed
May 22, 2000 and a miscellaneous office action, Paper No. 24,
mailed November 29, 2001, to include the Appendix of the claims
on appeal. The Examiner stated that the reply brief has been
considered and entered in Paper No. 26, mailed December 13, 2001.
However as stated in footnote 1, claim 23 was canceled in Paper
No. 7 and is not part of the appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007