Appeal No. 2001-2603
Application No. 08/867,857
commands based upon measurement of true position of the machine tool end effector with a
commanded position from a digital dataset.”
Quite clearly, as cited by the examiner, the “preselected nominal engineering design
dimensions of the part to be machined,” of Leistensnider, is a digital dataset representation of a part,
as claimed. Further, Leistensnider discloses that “data indicative of the machine tool position...is
placed in the storage means” (column 6, lines 44-45). Hence, the reference does provide tool
position data. Since Leistensnider discloses the performing of certain calculations on the stored data
and then sending newly calculated data to the storage means for later use, “or sends instructions to
the machine control 202 which operates the machine tool...” (Column 6,lines 48-52), it is clear that
Leistensnider is providing repositioning commands, as claimed. Quite clearly, since Leistensnider
is measuring the machine tool position via a probe, and has a digital dataset reproduction of the part,
the reference is comparing true position of the machine tool with the expected position and the
repositioning commands are based on this comparison.
While the claim recites a true position of a machine tool “end effector” and the reference
mentions nothing about such an “end effector,” the examiner explains that “the end effector can be a
probe or other machine tool” (answer-page 4) and appellants do not dispute this finding.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of broad claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b).
We turn, next, to the rejection of claims 9, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kyrazis,
Merry and Arnold.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007