Appeal No. 1998-2748
Application No. 08/429,783
machining program “being executed.” In contrast, the instant
claims require the correction of a nest structure of the
machining program “being executed.”
With regard to the “nest structure” limitation of the
instant claims, the examiner contends that all that is
required for “nesting” is a “routine or block of data included
within a larger routine or block of data” [answer-page 5].
The examiner then argues that since the loop in Table 48 is
within a larger routine, it is a nested subroutine, as
claimed.
It appears from the disclosure of Shimano that an
operator cannot rearrange a plurality of sequences which would
be required for a “nest structure” correction as intended by
appellant. Various portions of Shimano appear to indicate
that each sequence is completed in its entirety before it is
again executed in another “loop.” See, for example, column
44, lines 57-60 and column 47, lines 55-59 of Shimano.
Therefore, it would appear to us that, in Shimano, an operator
has no opportunity to return to any desired point within a
“nested structure” in order to correct the structure, as
claimed.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007