Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
control the operation of each motor to provide coordinate
relative movement between the tool and the workpiece along
each of the multiple axes. We note that the servos 20, 21 and
22 shown
in Figure 1 and in further detail in Figure 3 perform these
functions. Furthermore, we find that the Hyatt servos are
active processors as used by Appellant in claim 1.
Therefore, we find that Hyatt fails to disclose a
single active processor as recited in Appellant's claims. We
will thereby not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the
Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is
the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007