Appeal No. 2003-1480
Application No. 09/127,442
changed (col. 1, lines 59-63) while an object motion path can be
more finely designated by providing a new velocity attribute at
an optional point designated on the path (col. 2, lines 8-11).
Thus, Watanabe uses additional points along the path of an object
movement to alter the movement characteristics of the object on
display. However, this altering is completely different from
defining the cutter path of Higasayama using a plurality of
points with pre-calculated positions and spacing which do not
gain any advantage or enhanced functionality by being displayed.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be led, let
alone motivated, to display these points as any changes to the
points must be made only by calculations, not by manipulating the
points on a display.
Based on our findings above, we agree with Appellant that
the plurality of points defining the cutter path of Higasayama
cannot simply be displayed similar to the motion path of the
object in Watanabe and be used to control the velocity of the
cutter along the path. We also remain unconvinced by the
Examiner’s arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have displayed the cutter path of Higasayama in order to monitor
the motion of the cutter since the movement and velocity of the
cutter along its path requires inspecting the workpiece and not
whether the path is displayed. The Examiner has not pointed to,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007