Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
registering the criteria and rearranging and displaying the tool
data in accordance with said changed criteria. Appellant argues
that the Examiner is mischaracterizing the Tanaka teaching on
column 5, line 65 to column 6, line 3, as meeting Appellant's
claimed limitation of rearranging and displaying the tool data in
accordance with the changed criteria because Tanaka is only
teaching that the tool parameters may be changed to compensate
for wear. Appellant argues that as a result Tanaka does not
rearrange and display tool data but only replaces the data in a
field.
The Examiner argues on page 2 of the answer that since
Tanaka shows the ability to correct data and since it is known
that operators can make mistakes when entering data, Tanaka would
have inherently performed the step of rearranging the data when
an operator accidentally enters the wrong data at the wrong
place. Appellant responds to the Examiner’s argument on page 2
of the supplemental reply brief by arguing that even if the
Examiner is correct in how Tanaka would operate when correcting
errors, the location, an indication which tool is appropriate
for a particular machining mode, of the display data would
not change on the basis of changed tool criteria as recited
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007