Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
7. The visually controlled robot system of claim
6, wherein the three video cameras are mounted on three
mutually perpendicular axises.
The references relied on by the Examiner are:
Beamish et al. (Beamish) 4,825,394 Apr. 25, 1989
Christian 4,887,223 Dec. 12, 1989
Claims 1-6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Christian.
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Christian and Beamish.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellant, we refer to the answer (Paper No. 12, mailed November
4, 1999) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed August 20, 1999)
and the reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed January 13, 2000) for
Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellant indicates that claims
1-6 and 8 constitute one group while claims 7 and 9 stand or fall
together (brief, page 4). Thus, we will consider Appellant’s
claims 1-9 as these two identified groups and we will treat
claims 1 and 7 as the representative claims of their
corresponding groups.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007