Appeal No. 1997-4315
Application No. 08/159,618
been obvious to store in the admitted prior art and Takeuchi
combination. Appellants argue that the admitted prior art
usage of position and height data does not suggest the
efficient and accurate positional control achieved by the
claimed invention [request, pages 8-9].
Takeuchi discloses that “even if the machining
condition differs for every workpiece every pallet, the pallet
itself has the machining data corresponding to the machining
condition” [column 9, lines 39-42]. This passage suggests
that whatever data is needed to properly machine a given
workpiece is stored in a workpiece data storage means (the
pallet). The artisan would have appreciated that no workpiece
can be properly machined unless the relative positional
dimensions and locations of the tool and the workpiece are
stored as part of the machining program. Therefore, we still
agree with the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious to store position and height data of each workpiece in
a workpiece data storage means.
Appellants argue that the means plus function language
of claims 1-6, 19 and 21 has not been properly interpreted.
This argument was first made at the oral hearing, and the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007