Appeal No. 2002-0049 Page 12
Application No. 09/317,538
operating said controller to determine, responsive to said stored shape
data, locations of edge segments defined by said tool against which said work
material will impinge as said work material is advanced onto said tool in a first
direction;
causing said controller to generate a machining path, which when followed
by said cutter will relieve said edge segments; and
operating said machining apparatus to cause said cutter to follow said
machining path in response to command signals generated by said controller,
thereby relieving said edge segments and preventing said work material from
catching on said tool as it is advanced thereon.
Based on our analysis and review of Abe and claim 1, it is our opinion that the
differences3 are:
(1) providing a machining apparatus for supporting a tool (i.e., Abe's female die plate
with openings 114a, b and c) thereon, the machining apparatus including a rotary cutter
mounted thereon and moveable relative to the tool;
(2) providing a controller having machine readable shape data corresponding to the tool
stored therein;
(3) operating the controller to determine, responsive to the stored shape data, locations
of edge segments defined by the tool against which the work material will impinge as
the work material is advanced onto the tool in a first direction;
(4) causing the controller to generate a machining path, which when followed by the
cutter will relieve the edge segments; and
3 After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences between the prior art
and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007