Appeal No. 2001-2603
Application No. 08/867,857
OPINION
Turning, first, to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), an anticipatory reference is one
which describes all of the elements of the claimed invention so as to have placed a person of
ordinary skill in the art in possession thereof. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 205, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed.
Cir. 1990).
The examiner refers to column 6, lines 34-66, and column 9, lines 14-24, of Leistensnider as
disclosing all of the subject matter of instant claim 10. In particular, the examiner points out
Leistensnider’s “preselected nominal engineering design dimensions of the part to be machined”
(column 6, lines 39-40) and data related to the machine tool home position. The examiner also
contends that during operation of Leistensnider’s machine, a program and stored data are used to
provide newly calculated data to the machine control, citing column 6, lines 46-52 and column 9,
lines 14-24 (answer-page 3).
Considering the breadth of instant claim 10, the examiner appears to have set forth a prima
facie case of anticipation.
Appellants argue that Leistensnider has “no position adjustment or compensation based upon
the true position of the machine tool and [sic, end] effector” and that after probing the workpiece,
“there is no measurement of where the machine tool actually is in the Leistensnider system”
[principal brief-page 11]. Further, at page 11 of the reply brief, appellants argue that claim 10
“defines information storage media containing software to provide repositioning compensation
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007