Appeal No. 1998-1103
Application No. 08/668,718
determination step 17a of Okada; that the specifying means is taught by Okada’s interlock
condition memory disclosing what commands must be done before the start of the current
command; and that the means for executing the next command is taught by Okada’s
parallel operation of steps depending upon the code in the second column of the
sequence. See pages 2-3 of Paper No. 19.
For his part, appellant contends that Okada discloses a system for controlling the
internal processing of a sequence controller and not, as in the instant invention, a system
for outputting a miscellaneous command to a sequence controller from a numerical
controller. Thus, it is appellant’s position that Okada fails to teach processing
miscellaneous commands between an NC and a programmable controller and fails to
teach a system for checking the completion of a miscellaneous command outputted to a
sequence controller.
Independent claim 8 does make it clear that the miscellaneous command
originates from a numerical controller and is executed by a programmable controller. But
the sequence controller of Okada generates operation commands in a predetermined
sequence based on instructions from a controller in a machine tool environment. Thus, it
would appear that whatever commands are operated upon by Okada’s sequence
controller would originate from a numerical controller. However, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007