Appeal No. 2001-2603
Application No. 08/867,857
It is the examiner’s position that Kyrazis discloses the determination of the position of a tool
in three dimensions using a laser and a computer, wherein the measurement system is separate from
the machine tool and the system is applicable to machining.
The examiner recognized that Kyrazis does not give specifics on how the tool is controlled
but the examiner relied on Merry for the teaching of comparing the desired position to a measured
position and controlling the tool to follow a predetermined path, noting column 3, lines 44-57 and
column 5, lines 5-18, as well as the figures.
The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to modify Kyrazis in view of
Merry in order to compare the desired position to the measured position and if the error is nonzero,
then generate feedback commands to control the tool to follow the predetermined path so as to allow
the part to be accurately manufactured. The examiner also found that it would have been obvious to
stop and measure the position of the tool and, if necessary, correct its position before beginning
machining since this would allow additional time for a tool to achieve a stabilized operating state.
Even so, the examiner recognized that this combination still did not suggest that the path be
based on engineering drawings or a digital data set. The examiner turned to Arnold for a teaching of
using digital data derived from a part description and stored in memory. The examiner then
concluded that it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Kyrazis and Merry in view
of Arnold to “derive the control motion from the part description, since the overall objective is to
produce a part, which fits its description” (answer-page 5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007