Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
Therefore, we find that Pilland does not teach a tool criteria
expressed in a range of values from the most appropriate value to
a predetermined value as claimed.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5,
8 through 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Pilland. In regard to the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pilland and claims 11
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Pilland and Shima, we note that the Examiner relies on the same
reasoning as pointed out above. Therefore, we will not sustain
these rejections as well for the same reason as above.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Tanaka. Appellant argues on page 2 of the
reply brief that although Tanaka may teach a system that is
capable of replacing certain displayed parameters of a tool that
is to be used during a machining operation, nowhere does Tanaka
teach a step of rearranging and displaying tool data as in the
present invention. In particular, Appellant argues that claim 6
defines the method for specifying a tool comprising the step of
setting and registering by an operator tool criteria which
indicates which tool is appropriate for a particular machining
mode, displaying the registered criteria data, changing and
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007