Appeal No. 1997-2981
Application No. 08/161,304
§ 102(b), while we certainly understand the difference between
the instant disclosed invention and that taught by Idelsohn,
it is our view that the language of instant claim 39 is of
such broad nature as to read on Idelsohn. Idelsohn clearly
discloses a method for producing an object (a cut board or
boards) with a desired contour (i.e., the shape of the board)
by “rapidly, accurately, and on-line, electro-optically
determining the existing contour of said object” (Idelsohn
uses an optical scanner for “rapid and accurate [column 4,
lines 4-5] determination of the defects, their type and
location,” i.e., the “existing contour” of the object is
determined). Then, a “mark” is provided on the surface of the
object [column 3, line 60] and this mark contains “information
related to said existing contour as determined in step a).”
That is, the mark contains information as to where a cut
should be made and the position of the cut is clearly “related
to said existing contour” in the sense that the size and shape
of the board will determine where the cut or cuts should be
made for optimum use of the board. Finally, Idelsohn utilizes
the information contained in the marking, i.e., the mark used
for cutting, “to control the production of said object.” That
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007