Appeal No. 2002-1050
Application 09/425,505
deflection and align the actual cutting path with the desired
cutting path. In other words, the entire cutting tool is moved
in an offset direction to compensate for the deflection of the
tool tip. Claim 1, however, neither requires such movement nor
excludes movement which straightens the tool rather than
compensates for its deflection. The appellants’ position to the
contrary rests on an improper reading of limitations from the
specification into the claim. As indicated above, Gerber’s test-
determined compensatory yawing motions, which counteract
unbalanced “lateral” forces tending to deflect the cutting tool
tip laterally of the commanded cutting path (see Figure 2),
supplement the fundamental cutting tool motions by “directing the
blade slightly to one side of the cutting path from which the
unbalanced forces are applied” (column 5, lines 37 through 39,
emphasis added). Given the ordinary and accustomed meaning of
the term “lateral,” Gerber’s directing of the blade or tool “to
one side of the cutting path” constitutes a compensating
“lateral” directional offset to the extent broadly required by
claim 1. In this regard, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (G.
& C. Merriam Co. 1977) defines “lateral” as meaning “of or
relating to the side: situated on, directed toward, or coming
from the side.” This definition, which is entirely consistent
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007