Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, Appellant argues that Christian discloses
multiple overhead cameras but fails to teach imaging of the
entire moving area by at least two cameras from two different
directions (brief, page 4 and reply brief, page 3). Appellant
further asserts that each of Christian’s multiple cameras covers
only a distinct portion of the moving area of the robot (brief,
pages 6 & 7 and reply brief, page 3). Appellant also asserts
that Christian’s “goal” position is merely a position stored in
the memory of the navigation system and differs from the claimed
limitation of a “visible target” (brief, page 6). Furthermore,
Appellant points out that if the “visible target” is the same as
the robot itself, the “ordering signal” cannot move the robot to
the position of the visible target when the robot is always
located at the position of the visible target (id.).
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments by stating
that claim 1 merely requires that if the images cover the entire
moving are, such coverage be provided by at least two cameras
from different directions (answer, page 3). Relying on the
breadth of claim 1, the Examiner asserts that Christian does
teach a plurality of cameras that take images of the entire
moving area of the robot (id.). The Examiner further argues that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007