Appeal No. 2003-1275 Page 8
Application No. 09/443,456
shaping at the shaping station 50 would certainly appear to be a “forming process”
consistent with the use of that terminology on page 2, in lines 13-15, of appellants’
specification. Thus, in our view, the examiner’s position that Prinz’s system is a
“forming system” is reasonable. Further, from our viewpoint, at least the shot peener at
station 56 appears to meet the definition of a having a “local energy feed” set forth on
page 3 of appellants’ specification and thus is a machining device “with a local energy
feed” as called for in claims 1 and 27.
Appellants further argue (brief, page 21) that Prinz does not disclose moving the
at least one machining device in multiple planes as called for in claim 27. In response,
the examiner points to the shaping apparatus at shaping station 50, which is disclosed
as being, in a preferred embodiment, a CNC machine 51 having suitable shaping tools
such as a sander, milling tool, grinder or polisher attached thereto (column 5, lines 1-5)
and as passing over the complementary material shaping and contouring the
complementary material surface so as to define the surface of the object being
produced for that layer (column 6, lines 54-59). According to the examiner (answer,
pages 6-7), it is well-known that CNC machining devices are movable in multiple planes
and, further, to achieve the “shaping and contouring” referred to by Prinz, movement of
the shaping machine 51 in multiple planes would inherently be required. For the
following reasons, we find Prinz’s disclosure with regard to the shaping machine 51
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007