Appeal No. 2006-1831
Application No. 09/755,383
2. At column 3, line 64 through column 4, line 6,
Hannaford states that:
Referring to FIG. 2, an operator uses a pen-like or
other tool 14 to apply forces/displacements to the
control point 12. The manipulator 10 responds to the
applied forces allowing control point 12 movement with
three degrees of freedom within a workspace 16. The
control point 12 is defined at an end-effector 18. The
manipulator 10 includes a planar structure 20 enabling
motion in an xy plane to define two degrees of freedom.
The planar structure 20 is moved along a z-axis by
actuators 22, 24 to define a third degree of freedom.
3. At column 1, lines 52 through 63, Hannaford states
that:
A force feedback device also is referred to as a force
display. In the computer field the term display refers
to a visual output device upon which ephemeral images
are shown. The display serves as a visual interface
between an end user and a computer environment. An
operator uses his visual sense to experience the
images. Analogously, the term "force display" is coined
to refer to an output device upon which ephemeral
forces are exhibited. The force display serves as a
force-reflective, haptic, kinaesthetic, or tactile
interface between an operator and a real or simulated
environment. The operator uses his sense of touch to
experience the forces.
With the above discussion in mind, we find that the
Hannaford reference substantially teaches the claimed invention.
Hannaford teaches a pen-like tool for interfacing with a direct
drive manipulator, whereby said pen-like tool is able to move and
apply a force onto the surface of the direct drive manipulator.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007