Appeal No. 2000-1852
Application No. 08/924,856
from the position of a first robot to which Christian navigates
another robot. In fact, in navigating multiple robots, Christian
determines the position of a visible target by identifying the
present or absence of a robot in that position using means for
taking images and providing the identified position as the
destination for another robot.
In view of the analysis above, we find that the examiner has
met the burden of providing a prima facie case of anticipation as
Christian teaches a plurality of cameras that provide images of
the entire moving area of the robot from two directions as well
as the visible target in the moving area, as recited in
Appellant’s independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claims 1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over
Christian.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 7 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Christian and Beamish, Appellant asserts
that Christian’s use of one overhead camera for each section
provides no incentive for using the multiple camera views of
Beamish (brief, page 7). Although Appellant recognizes the
Examiner’s evaluation of Beamish related to increasing “accuracy
and efficiency in image processing and analysis” (answer, page
4), Appellant argues that no reason exists to expect any
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007