Appeal No. 1999-0086
Application No. 08/612,820
as distance and feedrate are extracted from the deceleration
ratio rule stored in the knowledge base and input to the
system processor to calculate the maximum allowable speed and,
accordingly, the optimum minimum positioning time, as the tool
approaches a workpiece corner.
We further disagree with Appellants (Brief, page 18) that
the Examiner has combined several embodiments in Niwa in
making the anticipatory rejection. From our reading of Niwa,
we are inclined to agree with the Examiner that, although Niwa
uses the term “embodiment” when discussing the various
features of the disclosed invention, these “embodiments” are
in actuality variations of the same tool positioning
embodiment. Notwithstanding this interpretation of the term
“embodiment” in Niwa, it is our view that the description of
the cornering operation alone illustrated in Niwa’s Figures
17(a) and (b) meets all of the requirements of appealed claim
1 as discussed supra.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed
limitations are present in the disclosure of Niwa, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 1
is sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007