Appeal No. 1999-0594
Application No. 08/434,010
Taylor, alone, is irrelevant. The examiner’s position is to the
effect that a logical combination of the two references is to use
the ball-bar (the “invention” of column 2, line 59) and CMM
combination also taught by Chapman at column 2, lines 57-62, for
calibrating the multi-axis machine of Taylor. The contention
that Chapman does not suggest combining a CMM having multiple
degrees of freedom and a multi-axis device is not controlling.
In the final rejection at page 3, lines 19-22, the examiner
contends that Taylor specifically suggests the combination of the
teachings of the three references by stating that his invention
is intended to be used in conjunction with machines such as CMM’s
and machine tools. This position of the examiner is reasonable
and is not addressed by appellant.
The fact that the ball-bar of Chapman measures dimensions in
a single, linear axis is not evidence that the rejection should
not be sustained. What is relevant in Chapman is that the
spindle or head 12 is movable in three coordinate directions
relative to the table 10; the examiner relies on Taylor for the
teaching of apparatus which develops 3-dimensional data and Vold
for a teaching that CMM’s have multiple degrees of freedom.
With respect to dependent claim 7, it is argued that
Chapman’s ball-bar does not include 6 degrees of freedom.
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007