Appeal No. 1999-0594
Application No. 08/434,010
the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9 should be sustained and that
the rejection of claim 8 should be reversed.
Appellant argues that the ball-bar 26 of Chapman is not
equivalent to the claimed coordinate measuring machine (CMM). It
is urged that the logical combination of Taylor and Chapman is to
use the ball-bar taught by Chapman for calibrating the machine or
multi-axis device of Taylor. The contention is made that
although Chapman teaches using the ball-bar with a variety of
devices, it does not suggest combining a CMM having multiple
degrees of freedom to a multi-axis device.
It is submitted that in the two embodiments of Chapman, the
ball-bars measure dimensions in a single, linear axis and,
accordingly, have only one degree of freedom. Whereas claim 1
recites that the CMM has multiple degrees of freedom, the
invention of claim 1 does not result from a combination of Taylor
and Chapman.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. The examiner does
not contend that Chapman’s ball-bar and a CMM are equivalents.
In this respect, it appears that appellant has misconstrued the
examiner’s position. Furthermore, the fact that a logical
combination of Taylor and Chapman may be to use the ball-bar
taught by Chapman for calibrating the multi-axis machine of
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007