Appeal No. 2001-0372
Application 08/928,242
Appellant argues that Endo uses the approach of time of flight
measurement using a pulse laser beam where Appellant’s invention
measures the amount of energy returned.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the
claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Upon our review of claim 1, we fail to find that the claim
precludes reading on Endo’s optical radar system. We fail to
find that there is any limitation recited in the claim that is
directed to detecting the amount of energy returned. Therefore,
we find that the Examiner reasonably interpreted the claim to
read on the Endo system.
Appellant further argues that the claim is distinguished
from the Endo reference because it recites a retroreflective
target. Appellant further admits that retroreflective targets
are known in the art. See page 6 of the brief.
We note that the Examiner does not contend that Endo teaches
a retroreflective target. However, the Examiner does argue that
retroreflective targets are known, which is not disputed by the
Appellant. The Examiner further argues that it would have been
obvious to use the known retroreflective targets with the Endo
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007