Appeal No. 1999-1578
Application 08/764,508
deviation or rotating the servomotor in the direction opposite to the first direction to release the elastic
deformation of said machine tool. We note that Appellant's independent claim 1 recited step "(d)
setting a predetermined positional deviation having a direction opposite to said first direction in said
error register when said abnormal load is detected." Furthermore, we note that Appellant's
independent claim 1 recited step "(e) rotating the servomotor in the direction opposite to the first
direction by a predetermined rotational amount corresponding to said predetermined positional
deviation and then stopping the servomotor, to release said elastic deformation of said machine tool."
We find similar language in Appellant's claim 4 in steps (f) and (g).
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner responds to Appellant's arguments by stating that Eto
discloses in embodiment 2 the step of reversing for a select amount determined by the formula (1) on
column 4. On page 6 of the answer, the Examiner argued that although it is true that Eto does not
disclose that the reason for reversal is to release elastic deformation of a machine tool, the claimed
exact intended use is not required to make this rejection.
Appellant responds to the examiner's answer on page 4 of the reply brief stating that "the Eto
formula is not predetermined but is variable." Appellant further responds that claims 1 and 4 positively
recite a step of rotating the servomotor in the direction opposite to the first direction by a
predetermined rotational amount to release the elastic deformation of the machine tool. Appellant
argues that this claim language cannot be ignored by the Examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007