Appeal No. 2003-1275 Page 4
Application No. 09/443,456
We turn first to the rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 17, 18, 23, 25 and 27-30 as being
anticipated by Hashimoto. Hashimoto discloses a laser process machine 12 disposed
in front of a progressive die 3 in a press machine 1. The progressive die 3 has
processing portions 5-8 for a phased processing at equal pitch P, which are adapted to
perform progressive processes such as drawing, bending, punching and the like to a
material 9 which is fed to the press machine 1. As discussed in columns 4 and 5 of
Hashimoto, the laser head 13 of the laser process machine is adapted to move in at
least two directions in a plane, including laterally to cut a forward end along direction A,
as illustrated in Figure 2, and diagonally to cut forward end tapered-off portions B, as
illustrated in Figure 2, as well as to cut dummy holes 15 and pilot relief holes 16, with
the dummy holes spaced at intervals equal to the pitch P of movement of the material
through the progressive die and the pilot relief holes being spaced at intervals matching
the spacing between two adjacent pilot pins 10A of the progressive die.
Appellants do not appear to dispute that Hashimoto discloses a forming system
comprising at least one forming tool or that the laser head 13 is a machining device with
a local energy feed. Rather, appellants’ only argument is that, since the laser head 13
is upstream of and outside the press machine 1, Hashimoto does not disclose at least
one machining device with a local energy feed “within” the forming system, as called for
in claim 1 (brief, page 20). We note, at the outset, that appellants have used the term
“forming” sufficiently broadly to include “cutting” in addition to deep-drawing, pressing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007