Appeal No. 2003-1347 Page 4
Application No. 09/825,044
Appellants argue that Platt does not disclose an analysis of a sequence of
photographs or other representations at the door of th elevator which are compared to
previous images. We do not agree. Platt clearly discloses at column 3, lines 37 to 42
and column 5, lines 15 to 27 that visual images or pictures are stored and compared on
a frame by frame basis to determine whether the elevator door should open or close.
Appellants also argue that Platt includes infrared sensing which is not necessary
in the appellants’ invention. This argument is not persuasive because as the
appellants’ claims include the word “comprising” and are open ended, the claims do not
exclude additional, unrecited elements. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495,
501, 42 USPQ2d 1608 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants further argue that Platt fails to recognize the problem addressed by
the appellants’ invention. This argument is not persuasive because it is not necessary
that the reference teach what the appellants are claiming, but only that the claims “read
on” something disclosed in the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d at
772, 218 USPQ at 789 (Fed. Ci. 1983).
Appellants further argue that Platt’s device does not image areas adjacent the
elevator door. We do not agree. Platt clearly images the areas adjacent to the elevator
door as is depicted in Platt’s figure 1. To the extent this argument relates to the
argument set forth in the reply brief that Platt does not image spaces inside the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007