Appeal 2006-2232
Application 10/242,188
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Wingate US 3,900,261 Aug. 19, 1975
Rushing US 6,225,618 B1 May 1, 2001
Kovtun US 6,510,339 B2 Jan. 21, 2003
(Dec. 6, 2000)
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 27 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Rushing.
2. Claims 1 to 8, 10, 12 to 26, 29, 33, 34, 37 to 39 and 43 to 51 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rushing in
view of Kovtun.
3. Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rushing and Kovtun and further in view of Wingate.
4. Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rushing in view of Wingate.
The Examiner contends that Rushing includes each element of
claims 27 and 32. Specifically, the Examiner contends that Rushing
discloses comparing the intensity of the returned pulse with a target value.
Appellants contend that Rushing does not disclose comparing the
intensity of the returned pulse to a target value but rather discloses
comparing the intensity of the returned pulse to a threshold value.
The Examiner contends that Kovtun is analogous art.
Appellants contend that Kovtun is not analogous art.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013