Appeal No. 1996-4124
Application No. 08/307,088
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 16 through 22 and 24 through 29. Claims 1 through 15 1
and 23 were canceled.
The invention relates to a method and apparatus of
detecting machining flaws caused by grinding machines.
Appellant identifies on page 2 of the specification that the
method allows for detection of machining flaws in a workpiece,
while the workpiece is being machined. On page 3 of the
1We note that on page 1 of the Examiner’s answer the
Examiner refers to an Examiner’s amendment. Further, we note
that Appellant approved the Examiner’s amendment in a February
1, 1996 interview. Further, on page 2 of the Examiner’s
answer, the Examiner noted several minor errors in Appellant’s
appendix A. There is some confusion on the record because the
claims in the appendix are different than the claims in the
record. See papers, numbers 15 and 20. In view of this
confusion, we must look to the record for the claims that are
for our consideration. In doing so, we note the following:
Claim 21, as amended by the August 22, 1994 amendment,
contains limitations of a "tooth disc" and a "grinding disc."
Claim 25, as submitted in the May, 9 1994 amendment and
amended by the Examiner’s Answer is dependent upon claim 29
and contains the limitations of a "grinding wheel." Claim 26
as amended by the August 22, 1994 amendment does not contain
the minor typographical error, errant "m", which is present in
Appellant’s appendix A. We further note that, the terms
"tooth disc" in claim 21 and "grinding wheel" in claim 25
appear to lack antecedent basis and we suggest that the
Examiner review this matter.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007