Appeal No. 2004-0278 Page 8
Application No. 09/626,362
position of the end effector and the target [i.e., a path using incremental movements
that minimizes the distance between the sensor coil 54 and the detecting circuit 58].
The appellant argues throughout the briefs that Mizuno does not disclose either
(1) determining a path from the point on the end effector of the robot and the target
point, using a path planning algorithm that minimizes a distance function between the
point on the end effector of the robot and the target point within the useable free space
as recited in claim 6, or (2) a microprocessor connected to receive signals from the
sensor and the receiver to determine a distance between the sensor and the receiver,
wherein the microprocessor generates a path using incremental movements that
minimizes the distance between the sensor and the receiver as recited in claim 10. We
agree. In that regard, there is no disclosure whatsoever in Mizuno of determining the
distance between the source coil 53 and the sense coil 54 or the generation of a path
that minimizes the distance between the source coil 53 and the sense coil 54. As such
claims 6 and 10 are not anticipated by Mizuno. The examiner's position that such
limitations are inherent in Mizuno is shear speculation unsupported by the teachings of
Mizuno.
Since all the limitations of claims 6 and 10 are not disclosed in Mizuno for the
reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject independent claims 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007