Appeal No. 1997-2981
Application No. 08/161,304
dimensional objects, this claim limitation is met.
With regard to claims 41-45 and 47-50, we will not
sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Each of these claims requires, in one form or another, “a
further shaped part” or “interaction” of first and second
parts in some manner. Idelsohn is concerned with only one
“part,” viz, a board to be cut. Pryor is concerned with one
part at a time and that part is not used in any manner to
manufacture a “further shaped part.” Neither reference is
concerned with any interaction between first and second parts.
Moreover, the examiner never comes to grips with these
specific claim limitations. They are not addressed in the
statement of the rejection of these claims and they are not
addressed in the response to appellant’s arguments section of
the answer. The only response that comes close to addressing
these claim limitations appears at page 4 of the answer where
the examiner talks about the marks on the lumber in Idelsohn
containing information and that this accumulated
“...information which describes a piece of lumber is used to
select a further object or piece of lumber for future
production.” The examiner then goes on to contend that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007