Appeal No. 1997-1924
Application No. 08/244,633
scope of the “movable members” relied upon by the Examiner.
The only movable
members found are tool rests TP1 and TP2. However, these
represent tools in use, as opposed to tools not in use. We
find nothing in Kawamura that implicitly teaches detecting
interference of the claimed “other tools” (i.e., tools not in
use), nor do we find any basis for detecting interference with
various parts of the NC lathe as claimed. Additionally, the
Examiner has not shown, nor do we find in Kawamura, other
tools not in use and mounted on the same turret as the tool in
use. Thus, the Examiner has not shown anticipation of the
claim by Kawamura.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007