Ex parte NIWA - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-2748                                                        
          Application No. 08/429,783                                                  


               The invention pertains to numerically controlled machine               
          tools.  More particularly, a machining program is permitted to              
          be executed from a stopped position wherein a system is                     
          created in which the number of subprogram repetition times and              
          the number of its execution times can be corrected.                         
               Independent claim 6, reproduced as follows, is                         
          representative of the claimed invention:                                    
               6.        A numerically controlled machine tool operative              
          to execute a machining program having a nest structure and                  
          being executable in block form, comprising:                                 
               monitor means for monitoring the execution block position              
          of said machining program being executed;                                   
               display means for displaying the nest structure of said                
          machining program being executed; and                                       
               correcting means for correcting said nest structure of                 
          the machining program displayed on said display means.                      

               The examiner relies on the following reference:                        
               Shimano et al. (Shimano)     4,835,730          May 30, 1989           
               Claims 6, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)              
          as anticipated by Shimano.                                                  
               Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the                     
          respective positions of appellant and the examiner.                         


                                       OPINION                                        

                                         -2-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007