Appeal 2007-1204
Application 10/370,869
Claim Element Analysis
Appellants argue, even if combined, the teachings of Engibarov and
Wharton do not answer each and every limitation of independent claims 1, 24, 47,
51, and 56 (Br. 11). Appellants’ sole remaining argument regarding the
patentability of independent claims 1, 24, 47, 51, and 56 is a distinctive definition
of the term “location” (Br. 11). Appellants maintain the term “location” as used in
these independent claims should be defined by the Specification in paragraph
[0043] as “a precise position (in x, y, and z space) and orientation (relative to x, y,
and z axes) relative to the base and to the metalworking operation, respectively.”
Id. We accept this definition for the term “location” as defined in paragraph
[0043] of the Specification, but we cannot give it the weight the Appellants seek.
Appellants argue the term “location” means a point in space which can
“repetitively position” (Br. 11) workpieces for precision machining operations, or
in other words, allow a workpiece to be “precisely repositionable” (Br. 11). This
argument fails because it assumes Appellants have defined “location” as a fixed
point in space, and thus differentiated from the infinite other existing points.
Paragraph [0043] of the Specification, however, describes the term “location” only
as being precisely defined both in x, y, and z space and in orientation to x, y, and z
axes, but not as a fixed, given point in space.
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition (1996) defines “precise”
inter alia, as 1: exactly or sharply defined 2. minutely exact. All points in space
have a position precisely definable in x, y, and z coordinates and have a precisely
definable orientation relative to x, y, and z axes, including those definable relative
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013