Appeal No. 2003-1347 Page 3
Application No. 09/825,044
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 12 , filed January 21, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No. 14, filed April 22, 2003 ) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 6 under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b)
as being anticipated by Platt. We initially note that to support a rejection of a claim
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claims is found,
either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art
references. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
In support of the rejection, the examiner finds that Platt discloses:
An elevator door 1 is operated to open and close. Based on a detector 5
sensing of the door entry and adjacent hallway, the door is commanded to
open and close by micro-controller 17. A field memory 23 and video
memory 22 are provided with each floors image without passengers and
based on present images the doors are commanded to open or close
based on passenger or load determination. The storage allows the
background images to be identified. As illustrated in figures 3a-3c a
matrix 11 determines moving objects as well as stationary objects. Based
on the detection, the doors are opened, closed or delayed from closing.
[answer at pages 3 and 4].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007