Appeal No. 2001-0372
Application 08/928,242
and further in view of Gallivan, Appellant argues that Gallivan
fails to teach the claimed limitation of having a reflective
target in which it is an optical bar code target. Appellant
argues that the Examiner improperly read the the Gallivan bars 37
encoded onto ball lens 36 as an optical bar code target.
Appellant argues that the term “bar code” is particularly defined
in the Appellant’s application on page 11, lines 23 through 25.
There, it is stated that bar code 35 as shown in figure 5
consists of reflective bars 37a arranged in the form of digital
codes on one side of the ball lens 33. Appellant argues that a
bar code is where each bar can vary in width, encoding
information in the non-symmetry of the bar pattern. In the case
of Gallivan’s bar lens 37, the bars are symmetrical with no
attempt to encode information in the non-symmetry of the pattern.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must
not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007