Appeal No. 1997-2986 Application No. 08/260,784 The rejection of claims 15 and 22 is affirmed for the reasons given in the discussion of similar claim 5. The rejection of claim 16 is reversed for the reasons given in the discussion of similar claim 6. Claim 23, unlike the other claims, calls for storing finished pieces having the same dimension produced in accordance with different program routines (e.g., from different sheets of stock) in the same unloading location (i.e., pallet location). Specifically, the claim recites: extracting relevant data from a program added to said production run before the end of said production run; analyzing from the extracted data the dimensions of pieces to be cut from worksheets in accordance with said added program; [and] routing each piece cut from said added program having the same dimension as one of said dimensioned groups of cut pieces to the same location on said surface area of said unloading means where said one dimensioned group of cut pieces are routed. We note that the claim language does not require that the program be added after the start of the production run, and thus can refer to the identification of the last set of patterns in a job lot. Taijonlahti does not explain where identical pieces are stored on pallet 7 when they appear in - 17 -Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007