Appeal No. 1997-1924
Application No. 08/244,633
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228
(1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appellants argue on page 5 of the brief that Kawamura
does not disclose checking the interference between each of
the tools other than the tool currently in use on the turret
and a
workpiece, and the interference between each of the other
tools and various parts of the NC lathe. We note that these
limitations are recited in Appellants’ claim 1 step (c).
The Examiner responds that Kawamura is applicable to
preventing collisions between “movable members” of the machine
tool. This implies that interference is detected and
corrected not only with respect to the tools but also with the
workpiece and various other parts of the NC machine tool
(answer-page 5). The Examiner further states:
[t]he entire argument [of Appellants] suggests that
each and every detail of the claimed invention must
be explicitly disclosed in the reference and if not
the claim is deemed patentable. This premise
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007