Appeal No. 1999-2101 Page 3
Application No. 08/929,012
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus for segment-by-segment
cutting of pattern pieces from fabric or the like, and includes means for generating a
“continuous marker” based upon receiving data regarding the size and shape of each
pattern piece. It is important to note at the outset that “continuous marker” has been
defined in the specification to mean a marker that continuously defines pattern pieces
comprising made to order garments or groups of garments as data defining such
garments is received (page 3). As we understand this feature of the invention from the
specification and the explanations offered in the Brief, it continuously defines and
redefines the existing marker during the cutting operation as new data is received, that is,
“on the fly,” as opposed to the prior art systems, in which a marker is produced from a
collection of data and, once produced, remains static during the cutting operation.
As manifested in independent claim 1, the appellant’s invention comprises a
computer-aided design system for continuously receiving data representing a plurality of
made to order garments and for continuously generating a marker in response to the data
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007