Ex parte NIWA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 8, 2000

08429783 (B.P.A.I. May. 8, 2000)

-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte TOMOMITSU NIWA
________________
Appeal No. 1998-2748
Application No. 08/429,783
________________
HEARD: MAY 1, 2000
________________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 6, 20 and 21, all of the claims remaining in the
application.
Appeal No. 1998-2748
Application No. 08/429,783
-2-
The invention pertains to numerically controlled machine
tools. More particularly, a machining program is permitted to
be executed from a stopped position wherein a system is
created in which the number of subprogram repetition times and
the number of its execution times can be corrected.
Independent claim 6, reproduced as follows, is
representative of the claimed invention:
6. A numerically controlled machine tool operative
to execute a machining program having a nest structure and
being executable in block form, comprising:
monitor means for monitoring the execution block position
of said machining program being executed;
display means for displaying the nest structure of said
machining program being executed; and
correcting means for correcting said nest structure of
the machining program displayed on said display means.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Shimano et al. (Shimano) 4,835,730 May 30, 1989
Claims 6, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
as anticipated by Shimano.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Appeal No. 1998-2748
Application No. 08/429,783
-3-
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. V. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Assoc. Inc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The instant claims require the execution of a machining
program having a nest structure. They also require correcting
the nest structure of the machining program being executed.
The examiner points to Table 48 in column 41 of Shimano for
the teaching of these claimed limitations.
First, it appears that Table 48 of Shimano is directed to
a “walk-through training” mode of operation where actual
programming, rather than the execution of the program, is of
interest. Thus, any editing performed by an operator in
Shimano would not be a correction of a nest structure of the
Appeal No. 1998-2748
Application No. 08/429,783
-4-
machining program “being executed.” In contrast, the instant
claims require the correction of a nest structure of the
machining program “being executed.”
With regard to the “nest structure” limitation of the
instant claims, the examiner contends that all that is
required for “nesting” is a “routine or block of data included
within a larger routine or block of data” [answer-page 5].
The examiner then argues that since the loop in Table 48 is
within a larger routine, it is a nested subroutine, as
claimed.
It appears from the disclosure of Shimano that an
operator cannot rearrange a plurality of sequences which would
be required for a “nest structure” correction as intended by
appellant. Various portions of Shimano appear to indicate
that each sequence is completed in its entirety before it is
again executed in another “loop.” See, for example, column
44, lines 57-60 and column 47, lines 55-59 of Shimano.
Therefore, it would appear to us that, in Shimano, an operator
has no opportunity to return to any desired point within a
“nested structure” in order to correct the structure, as
claimed.
Appeal No. 1998-2748
Application No. 08/429,783
-5-
Based on our reading of Shimano, a determination that
there is, in fact, disclosed therein the execution of a
machining program having a nested structure and a correction
of said nested structure, as claimed, can only be bottomed, at
best, on speculation and hindsight, improper criteria on which
to base a finding of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The
examiner has not persuaded us of a prima facie case of
anticipation of the instant claimed subject matter based on
Shimano.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
6, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Appeal No. 1998-2748
Application No. 08/429,783
-6-
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
rwk
SUGHRUE MION ZINN
MACPEAK & SEAS
Appeal No. 1998-2748
Application No. 08/429,783
-7-
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20037