Appeal No. 1999-0086
Application No. 08/612,820
With regard to apparatus claim 18 which contains the same
historical data features as method claim 1, we sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of this claim as well.
We find Appellants’ argument (Brief, page 19) that Niwa’s
feedrate calculations are not germane to the worksheet moving
and machining operation recited in claim 18 to be without
merit. In our view, Niwa is clearly concerned with the
relative movement between a machine tool and a workpiece
(Niwa, Abstract, lines 5-9). Further, Niwa’s calculated
feedrate in relation to, for example, the cornering operation
illustrated in Figures 17(a) and (b) has clear relevance to
the “movement and machining” of a workpiece as set forth in
claim 18.
In summary, we have not sustained the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 1-33, but we have sustained
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 and 18.
Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-33 is
affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007