Appeal No. 1998-2740
Application 08/438,492
Appellant responds that “conversion formulas” are
structural elements and cannot be given a functional definition
as proposed by the examiner. Appellant asserts that the
examiner’s definition of conversion formulas is inconsistent with
the meaning provided in the specification. Appellant also
responds that Mizuno also does not disclose the calculation of
teaching points [reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by the examiner. The
salient question appears to be whether or not Seki teaches the
use of conversion formulas for determining the movement path of a
tool or work piece. We find that Seki does teach this feature of
the claimed invention. As noted by Appellant, a part program is
disclosed by Seki at column 3, lines 20-59. The part program,
however, only tells the robot computer what the initial teaching
points are and how the computer is to move from point to point.
For example, the part program disclosed by Seki indicates that
the robot is to move in a circular arc in approaching the work
piece and then move in five straight line segments, and finally
to withdraw from the work piece in another circular arc. The
actual points (the teaching points) along the desired path,
however, are not provided to the robot computer. These points
have to be calculated by the robot computer of Seki. In other
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007