Appeal No. 1997-4315
Application No. 08/159,618
the decision of June 23, 2000 wherein the Board affirmed the
rejection of claims 1-6, 19 and 21 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have reconsidered the decision of June 23, 2000 in
light of appellants’ comments in the request for rehearing,
and we find no errors therein. We, therefore, decline to make
any changes in the prior decision for the reasons which
follow.
The request for rehearing initially points to supposed
errors made by the Board in affirming the rejection of claims
1-6. Claims 1-6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Tsujino and Fukuyama.
Appellants argue that the Board failed to consider the proper
meaning of the word “set” when viewed in light of the
disclosure. Specifically, appellants argue that the term
“set” means a “pre-specified tool is or is not present”
[request, page 3]. The earlier decision relied on Tsujino for
teaching this recitation of independent claim 1. Appellants
argue that a “tool set condition displaying means” cannot be
met by the types of tool parameters described by Tsujino or
Fukuyama. We do not agree.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007