Appeal No. 1997-4315
Application No. 08/159,618
the original panel considered. Specifically, Takeuchi teaches
an affirmative action of not moving a tool to the machining
center when the data is inaccurate [note column 9, lines 28-
32]. As noted in Takeuchi, the movement of the defective
pallet is inhibited. We view such inhibition of movement as
an action of stopping processing of a program. We also view
such stopping as a stopping when necessary workpiece data has
not been set in said workpiece fixing means as recited in
claim 19.
We are also of the view that Takeuchi teaches the
prompting function of claim 19. Takeuchi states that “[i]f
the normal data cannot be received even after the resending
operation was requested a predetermined number of times, the
CPU 30 of the write/readout unit 25 turns on the error
indicator 72, thereby instructing the checking by the
operator” [column 8, lines 13-17]. Such an indication to the
operator would have suggested the claimed prompting of an
operator to set workpiece data.
With respect to claim 21, the Board in the earlier
decision observed that the claimed position and height data of
each workpiece was conventional information that would have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007