Appeal No. 1999-0086
Application No. 08/612,820
With respect to independent method claim 1, the Examiner
has indicated (Answer, page 5) how the various limitations are
read on the disclosure of Niwa. In particular, the Examiner
points to the description at column 13, line 27 to column 14,
line 57 in Niwa.
After careful review of the Niwa reference in light of
the arguments of record, we are in agreement with the
Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. Appellants’
arguments in response (Brief, pages 16-18) assert that each of
the steps (a) through (d) in claim 1 is not disclosed in Niwa.
We find none of Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
With respect to step (a) of claim 1 which recites
“determining a number of parameters which affect each
positioning move . . . from said worksheet;. . . .”,
Appellants contend that, in the excerpt from Niwa cited by the
Examiner, only a number of feedrates related to tool position
relative to the workpiece are disclosed. In our view,
however, notwithstanding the fact that the values L1-L4 in
Niwa are distances and not feedrates as argued by Appellants,
these distance values L1-L4 along with the associated
feedrates F and the tool radius r qualify as a “number of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007