Appeal No. 2004-0278 Page 13
Application No. 09/626,362
Greer's portable reference target 400; (2) the claimed receiver disposed on a robot end
effector was readable on Greer's feature sensor 240; and (3) the claimed
microprocessor to determine a distance between the sensor/emitter and the receiver
was readable on Greer's CAD workstation 502. The examiner further stated that
Greer's CAD workstation 502 inherently "will take the most efficient path between the
current position of the end effector and the target [i.e., a path using incremental
movements that minimizes the distance between the portable reference target 400 and
the feature sensor 240].
The appellant argues throughout the briefs that Greer 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 in Greer of determining the distance
between the portable reference target 400 and the feature sensor 240 or the generation
of a path that minimizes the distance between the portable reference target 400 and the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007