Appeal No. 1998-1103
Application No. 08/668,718
question still arises as to whether Okada teaches or suggests checking the completion of
a miscellaneous command output to the sequence controller.
The examiner’s response to this argument regarding checking the completion of a
miscellaneous command output to the sequence controller is to point to column 16 of
Okada wherein it states, “...steps S9, S10, S11, S13, S14 and S17 are repeatedly
executed until the relevant operation in step S15 is completed...”. The examiner then
asserts that a command completion is contemplated by Okada and that since internal
commands are steps performed in the execution of an external command received by the
sequence controller, the detection of completion is “effectively detection of completion of
their associated external command” [answer-page 4].
Appellant responds by contending that although Okada may teach a main computer
sending a command to a sequence controller, it does not teach the
processing of miscellaneous commands between a NC and a PC, “much less the
processing of miscellaneous commands having specific controls on the timing of their
execution, as defined by the claimed invention” [reply brief-page 2].
While appellant’s arguments are not very specific as to upon which claim limitations
appellant relies, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9 and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) because we remain unconvinced by the examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007