Ex parte NIWA - Page 5




          Appeal No. 95-4325                                                          
          Application 08/006,957                                                      


               1.  A tool specifying method in an NC automatic programming            
          system for specifying a tool by displaying tool data consisting             
          of at least tool shapes for identifying tools, comprising the               
          steps of:                                                                   
               1) setting and registering said tool data;                             
               2) setting and registering tool criteria appropriate for a             
          machining mode, said tool criteria being specified in a range by            
          the most appropriate value and a predetermined value greater or             
          smaller than said most appropriate value;                                   
               3) automatically arranging and displaying said tool data in            
          accordance with said set criteria; and                                      
               4) selecting and specifying desired tool data from among               
          said tool data displayed.                                                   
               The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:               
          Tanaka                            4,591,989     May  27, 1986               
          Shima et al (Shima)               4,823,253     Apr. 18, 1989               
          Pilland et al. (Pilland)          4,992,948     Feb. 12, 1991               
               Claims 1, 5, 8 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pilland.  Claims 2 and 3 stand             
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                   
          Pilland. Claims 11 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
          § 103 as being unpatentable over Pilland and Shima.  The                    
          Examiner’s answer set forth the following new ground of                     
          rejection.  Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tanaka.  Claim 19 stands                   
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                   
          Pilland.                                                                    

                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007