Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138, (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485, (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants’ claim 1 recites "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." Emphasis added.
Appellant argues on pages 13-16 of the brief that the
Examiner erroneously construed Pilland as teaching a tool
criteria as specified by a range by the most appropriate value
and a predetermined value greater or smaller than said most
appropriate value. Appellant further argues on pages 15 and 16
that the invention as defined in independent claims 1 and 8,
allows a plurality of tool data, each representing a particular
machining tool, to be arranged and displayed in an order of
priority based on the tool criteria for each machining mode of a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007