Appeal No. 1998-1083
Application 08/402,606
The Examiner finds that the difference between Ishiguro
and the claimed subject matter is that "the claims recite
determining and calculating a bending amount at the distal
end of the tool" (FR2). Appellant interprets this to mean
that Ishiguro fails to teach or suggest steps (a) to (c) of
independent claims 1 and 2 (Br7). Actually, the Examiner
appears to be finding that Ishiguro does not disclose the
"determining" step of step (c) and the "calculating" step of
step (d) of claim 1.
We find that Ishiguro does not teach steps (c), (d), or
(e). Ishiguro is a force-controlled robot that compensates
for the difference between the actual reaction force and a
predetermined target force (abstract). Ishiguro does not
detect (e.g., by measuring or computing) or compensate for
the bending amount caused by the robotic tool.
Furukawa is relied on by the Examiner for its teaching
of compensating for the deflection caused by the robot's own
weight. Furukawa does teach compensating for bending
(cols. 1-2). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious "to modify the taught path control of Ishiguro et
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007