Appeal No. 2004-0241 Page 3
Application No. 09/773,366
(Paper No. 9) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 11) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is an improvement to the feeding of stock into multi-
spindle machines which simultaneously drive a number of machining devices from a
single main motor. According to the appellant, it is typical in the prior art systems to
feed new stock into a machine at the same high speed that subsequently is used to
drive the tools which work upon the stock, which causes new stock to impact and
bounce back from the stock stops that align it in the work position, which is undesirable.
The appellant’s invention slows down the feeding of new stock into a machine prior to
the stock engaging a stock stop. In furtherance of this objective, all of the claims call for
a stock feeder mechanism comprising a brake arrangement operative to slow the speed
of the feeder mechanism and a controller which operates to control the braking
arrangement “to slow the speed of the feeder mechanism during stock feeding” (claim 1,
emphasis added).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007