Appeal No. 2003-1275 Page 3
Application No. 09/443,456
(3) Claims 24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hashimoto.
(4) Claims 9 and 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hashimoto in view of Koser.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Office
action from which this appeal is taken and the answer (Paper Nos. 19 and 21) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief (Paper No.
20) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Independent claims 1 and 27 read as follows:
1. A forming system for forming workpieces, comprising a
plurality of stations, at least one forming tool, and at least
one machining device with a local energy feed for machining
the workpieces is arranged as a separate station within the
forming system.
27. A process for forming workpieces, comprising the step
of machining the workpieces by at least one machining
device with a local energy feed in a system cycle, and
moving the at least one machining device in multiple planes.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007