Appeal No. 95-2784
Application 08/193,634
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assocs.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548,
220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
On page 2 of the answer, the Examiner refers us to
the final action for the grounds of the rejection. In the
final action, the Examiner agrees that Daggett fails to teach
a single active processor to control the multi-axes machine.
The Examiner relies on Hyatt for a teaching of a single active
processor.
As we have found above, we fail to find that Hyatt
teaches a single active processor that not only controls the
data
defining means and the data converting means but also receives
feedback information and controls the operation of each motor
to provide coordinate relative movement between the tool and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007