Appeal No. 1998-2416
Application 08/586,807
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 15 as being unpatentable over
Todd in view of Zimmermann, or the additional 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 15 as being unpatentable over Todd
in view of Zimmermann and Roberts.
IV. Claims 9 through 12 and 26
Independent claim 26 reads as follows:
26. A method of preparing a workpiece to be machined,
comprising:
(a) providing a machine tool;
(b) providing an enclosure about said machine tool to
enclose said machine tool within a predetermined space;
(c) providing a predetermined machining environment
within said predetermined space; and
(d) storing one or more workpieces within said
predetermined space for a predetermined period of time prior
to subjecting such workpieces to being machined by said
machine tool;
(e) said predetermined period of time being sufficient to
customize the workpieces to said predetermined machining
environment.
The appellants’ position (see pages 13 and 14 in the
brief) that this claim patentably defines over Todd and
Zimmermann, taken singly or in combination, is not persuasive
because Todd discloses each and every element of the claim.
More particularly, and notwithstanding the appellants’
arguments to the contrary which are unpersuasive because they
are not commensurate with the relatively broad scope of claim
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007