Appeal No. 2001-2603
Application No. 08/867,857
The examiner explains, at page 7 of the answer, how Leistensnider is considered to disclose
the claimed subject matter but for stating that a predetermined threshold is used. The examiner
further explains that it would have been obvious to modify Leistensnider to provide for this
deficiency because the use of a predetermined threshold of zero “so that the parts are made
correctly.”
Appellants’ only response is that Leistensnider assumes the machine tool knows where it
actually is and never corrects the NC media for true position. We agree with the examiner that
claim 14 requires only that the media have computer readable information recorded to provide delta
correction commands in machine media to a machine controller and does not require that the NC
media be corrected as appellants argue. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection because
appellants have presented no arguments convincing us of error on the examiner’s part.
Since appellants have not convinced us of any error in the examiner’s prima facie case, we
will sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) and the rejections of claims 9, 10,
14, 15, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007