Appeal No. 2001-2603
Application No. 08/867,857
calculates the adjustment and corrects the position of the end effector for machine errors (wear,
heating, etc.) and factory-induced errors (vibration, ambient temperature changes, movement of the
machine or workpiece, etc.).” The argument is not persuasive because instant claim 9 does not
mention any of these factors or errors recited by appellants. Arguments directed to limitations not
appearing in the claims are not persuasive of nonobviousness.
Appellants argue the combination of Kyrazis and Merry because Kyrazis “is a measurement
system while Merry is a machine tool controller” (principal brief-page 13). We disagree. As
pointed out by the examiner, at page 5 of the answer, Kyrazis “is not simply a measurement system,
but also teaches the use of tooling and error correction,” noting column 23, lines 11-25 and column
13, lines 5-12.
Appellants argue that Merry does not use an independent measurement system to measure
true position of the end effector and does not provide the claimed comparison. However, it is
Kyrazis which the examiner uses to show an independent measurement system, at column 7, lines
49-65. Further, Merry does provide for comparison, at column 3, lines 44-57, as pointed out by the
examiner (answer-page 4) and appellants have not adequately explained why this is not equivalent
to the comparison in the instant claimed invention.
Appellants argue that Arnold does not cure the deficiencies of Kyrazis and Merry. We do
not find the deficiencies argued by appellants. Moreover, appellants argue that Arnold software has
“little similarity to what Applicant describes and claims” (principal brief-page 13) and that
“[s]ignificant features are missing in Arnold entirely from the functionality of the software of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007