Appeal No. 2003-1275 Page 9
Application No. 09/443,456
insufficient to meet the step of moving the at least one machining device in multiple
planes recited in claim 27.
First, even assuming that all CNC machines are capable of movement in multiple
planes as urged by the examiner, claim 27 requires an actual step of so moving, not the
mere capability of such movement. Second, without further details of the particular
shape of the object, it cannot even be concluded that relative movement of the work
surface and machining device in two planes is necessary. Moreover, even assuming
that the shape of the object is such as to require such relative movement, Prinz
discloses cooperation of the CNC machine with a rotary/tilt table (column 5, lines 7-8);
thus, shaping and contouring of such a three-dimensional object could be achieved
without movement of the machining device in multiple planes by movement of the work
surface and complementary material in relation to the machining device. We therefore
find nothing in Prinz which leads us to the conclusion that Prinz inherently discloses
movement of the shaping machine in multiple planes.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with appellants that Prinz fails to disclose a
step of moving the at least one machining device in multiple planes as recited in claim
27. It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 27, or claims 28-
30 depending therefrom, as being anticipated by Prinz. Inasmuch as claim 1 does not
include this limitation and having found, supra, appellants’ argument with respect to the
“forming system” limitation unpersuasive, we shall sustain the rejection of claim 1, as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007