Ex parte NIWA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 1997

08006957 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 1997)

Application for patent filed January 21, 1993.1
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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TOMOMITSU NIWA
_____________
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,9571
______________
HEARD: JULY 15, 1997
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 18. Claim 4 has been canceled.
On September 2, 1994, Appellant filed an after final amendment
canceling claim 15, adding new claim 19 and amending claims 6 and
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
2
11. The Examiner in an advisory action, mailed September 14,
1994, stated that upon the filing an appeal, the proposed
amendment, filed September 2, 1994, will be entered. We note
that the amendment has been entered into the record and thereby,
claims 1 through 3, 5 through 14 and 16 through 19 are properly
before us for our consideration.
Appellant’s invention relates to a tool specifying method
and apparatus for a numerically controlled automatic programming
system. Appellant discloses on page 1 of the specification that
it is known in the art that a particular tool to be used may be
specified in a program by entering a corresponding tool
management number. To specify a tool in this known method, it is
necessary for an operator to understand the relationships between
the tools and corresponding tool management numbers in advance.
On pages 2 through 8, Appellant discloses a prior art system as
described in Figures 18-22 which solves these disadvantages by
entering a tool into the system by a tool name, a nominal
diameter, etc. as well as a tool management number. See Figure
20. When the tool specifying processing is initiated as
illustrated in Figure 19, the operator may select the tool by
either the tool name or tool management number. On pages 9 and
10, Appellant discloses another prior art system as illustrated
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
3
in Figure 23. This system provides a fully automatic tool
selection mode in which the most appropriate tool is
automatically selected with operator input as well as an operator
determination mode in which the operator selects the tool. On
page 10, Appellant discloses in the operator determination mode
the operator must select the most appropriate tool from a list of
tools in a tool group. The system automatically determines the
tool group from tool determination data. Appellant discloses
that the disadvantage of both of these prior art systems is where
the number of tools from which a selection is to be made becomes
large, the information is not presented in a way that will aid
the operator in the selection of the most appropriate tool.
Appellant discloses on page 11 of the specification that
this disadvantage is overcome by Appellant’s invention by
providing a tool determining method in which the tools are
displayed on the screen in the order from the most appropriate
tool to the least appropriate tool. This tool order is
determined from a criterion table which provides set selection
reference data.
Beginning on page 15 of the specification, Appellant
discloses the tool specifying method as described in accordance
with a flowchart shown in Figure 17. On pages 16 through 18 of
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
4
the specification, Appellant discloses the process of registering
tool data. Figure 4 shows the tool data setting screen in which
the operator sequentially enters the tool attribute data for each
tool loaded on the machine. The data is then placed in the
criterion table by the system. On page 19 of the specification,
Appellant discloses that the operator sequentially enters various
data indicating the selection reference data of the tool by the
criterion data setting screen shown in Figure 5. One type of
data entered by the operator specifies conditions to be satisfied
by the tools. The conditions are listed on pages 20 and 21.
Appellant discloses that a range follows each of these
conditions. On pages 21 and 22 of the specification, Appellant
discloses that the range defines a value ”a” which is the most
appropriate value of the condition for the tool and a value “b”
which is either the greatest or least permissible value of the
condition for the tool. Once all the data is entered, Appellant
discloses on pages 23 through 24 of the specification that when
the operator depresses the “TOOL SELECT” menu key, the system
provides a list of tools in which the tools appropriate for the
machining are displayed on the CRT display 5 as shown in Figure 8
in the order in which they seem to be most appropriate.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
5
1. A tool specifying method in an NC automatic programming
system for specifying a tool by displaying tool data consisting
of at least tool shapes for identifying tools, comprising the
steps of:
1) setting and registering said tool data;
2) setting and registering tool criteria appropriate for a
machining mode, said tool criteria being specified in a range by
the most appropriate value and a predetermined value greater or
smaller than said most appropriate value;
3) automatically arranging and displaying said tool data in
accordance with said set criteria; and
4) selecting and specifying desired tool data from among
said tool data displayed.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Tanaka 4,591,989 May 27, 1986
Shima et al (Shima) 4,823,253 Apr. 18, 1989
Pilland et al. (Pilland) 4,992,948 Feb. 12, 1991
Claims 1, 5, 8 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Pilland. Claims 2 and 3 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Pilland. Claims 11 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Pilland and Shima. The
Examiner’s answer set forth the following new ground of
rejection. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Tanaka. Claim 19 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Pilland.
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
Appellant filed an appeal brief on January 13, 1995. We2
will reference this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellant
filed an appeal reply brief on June 28, 1995. We will reference
this appeal reply brief as simply the reply brief. The Examiner
responded to the reply brief with an Examiner’s supplemental
answer and thereby entered the reply brief into the record.
Appellant filed an appeal supplemental reply brief on February
16, 1996. We will reference the appeal supplemental reply brief
as simply the supplemental reply brief. The Examiner responded
to the supplemental reply brief with a letter mailed May 10, 1996
stating that the supplemental reply brief has been entered and
considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed
necessary.
The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's3
answer, dated April 28, 1995. We will refer to the Examiner's
answer as simply the answer. The Examiner responded to the
reply brief with supplemental Examiner's answer dated December
18, 1995. We will refer to the supplemental Examiner's answer as
simply the supplemental answer. The Examiner responded to the
supplemental reply brief with a letter dated May 10, 1996 so
noting that the supplemental reply brief has been entered. The
Examiner offered no other response.
6
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for2 3
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that the claims 1, 5 through 10 and 19
are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or claims 2, 3 and 11
through 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
7
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138, (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485, (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellants’ claim 1 recites "setting and registering tool
criteria appropriate for a machining mode, said tool criteria
being specified in a range by the most appropriate value and a
predetermined value greater or smaller than said most appropriate
value." Emphasis added.
Appellant argues on pages 13-16 of the brief that the
Examiner erroneously construed Pilland as teaching a tool
criteria as specified by a range by the most appropriate value
and a predetermined value greater or smaller than said most
appropriate value. Appellant further argues on pages 15 and 16
that the invention as defined in independent claims 1 and 8,
allows a plurality of tool data, each representing a particular
machining tool, to be arranged and displayed in an order of
priority based on the tool criteria for each machining mode of a
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
8
machining program being entered as disclosed in the Appellants’
specification, page 22, line 19 through page 24, line 12.
Appellant further argues that the invention as defined in
independent claims 1 and 8 determines the above-mentioned order
based on the claimed range of the tool criteria where the range
is specified as values between the most appropriate value and a
predetermined value greater or smaller than said most appropriate
value.
The Examiner argues in the answer on page 3 that Pilland
teaches the tool criteria being specified in a range by the most
appropriate value and a predetermined value greater or smaller
than said most appropriate value in column 3, lines 26-30.
Pilland states in column 3, line 26-30 the following:
Weighting is effected in keeping with the criteria of
interest, taking into account, in particular, the time
required, quality, deviations from optimum machining
values or the exceeding of absolute boundary values,
which are also stored in the data base.
However, the Examiner has not made clear here his position as to
what is the tool criteria and how this criteria is expressed in a
range by the most appropriate value and a predetermined value
greater or smaller than the most appropriate value.
On page 9 of the answer, the Examiner further clarifies his
position by stating that Pilland shows that weights are based on
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
9
deviations from optimum machining values or the exceeding
absolute boundary values and these deviations and boundary values
constitute a range that meets the claimed language. Thus, it
appears that the Examiner finds that the Pilland teaching of a
data base of the deviations from optimum machining values or the
exceeding of boundary values meet the claimed tool criteria.
Upon a closer review of Pilland, we find that Pilland
teaches in column 1, lines 21-26, that for the machine tool to
operate optimally, data concerning the workpiece, the tool, the
machine itself, the cutting process to be used and general
boundary conditions such as life, wear, etc. must be taken into
consideration. In column 1, lines 50-63, Pilland teaches that
the determination of control data to operate optimally the
machine tool requires the determination of the selection of the
optimum cutting edge geometry, the correct bit type, optimum
cutting velocity, and the calculating of the feed for the tool
slide, the cutting depth, the number of cuts, worming spindle
capacity and the cutting edge contact time. In column 2, lines
5-22, Pilland teaches that their invention stores in a data base
the various machine tools and machining operations. The data
base for each machine tool contains data relative to the given
machine tool, such as rpm range, field of drive, drive
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
10
characteristic (force, capacity, torque), drive gear steps, axle
feed forces corresponding velocities, maximum cutting force,
work-piece clamping force, speed limits, chuck conditions,
coefficients of friction, tailstock, steady rest and static and
dynamic stabilities. Pilland further teaches in column 2, lines
23-37, that additional information stored in the data base
includes data concerning the tools insertable into a given
machine tool such as individual types of tools, their stability
and dimensions, loading capability, working range, grades of the
bit and etc. In addition, Pilland teaches that additional
information stored in the data base includes data concerning
individual processing methods, such as data relating to general
boundary conditions of the machining of workpieces such as tool
wear, etc.
In column 3, lines 6-38, Pilland teaches the subroutines
which make possible the selection, determination and computation
of all these above mentioned variables for an optimal machining
process. Pilland teaches that the operator is only required to
enter data relative to the material of the work piece, the type
of tool to be used and the surface quality desired of the article
to be produced. The data processing unit determines by means of
the subroutines the suitable cutting data including the weighting
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
11
of the individual cutting data. All possible pairings of cutting
materials and bit shapes are formed by combination and then
weighted. Pilland then states in column 3, lines 26-30, the
passage that the Examiner is relying on, that the weighting is
effected by taking into account the exceeding of absolute
boundary values among other factors.
From a reading of Pilland as a whole, we fail to find that
Pilland teaches "tool criteria being specified in a range by the
most appropriate value and a predetermined value greater or
smaller than said most appropriate value." We agree that Pilland
teaches tool criteria such as their stability and dimensions,
loading capability, working range, grades of the bit and etc.
However, Pilland fails to teach that the tool criteria is
expressed in a range of values from the most appropriate value to
a predetermined value greater or smaller than said most
appropriate value. In addition, we acknowledge that Pilland does
teach absolute boundary values or deviations from optimum values
for machining the workpieces which are tolerances for a finished
workpiece. However, we will not speculate that such teaching
would require an expression of a range as claimed without a
further teaching shown in the record. We are dealing with an
anticipation determination and not an obviousness determination.
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
12
Therefore, we find that Pilland does not teach a tool criteria
expressed in a range of values from the most appropriate value to
a predetermined value as claimed.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5,
8 through 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Pilland. In regard to the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pilland and claims 11
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Pilland and Shima, we note that the Examiner relies on the same
reasoning as pointed out above. Therefore, we will not sustain
these rejections as well for the same reason as above.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Tanaka. Appellant argues on page 2 of the
reply brief that although Tanaka may teach a system that is
capable of replacing certain displayed parameters of a tool that
is to be used during a machining operation, nowhere does Tanaka
teach a step of rearranging and displaying tool data as in the
present invention. In particular, Appellant argues that claim 6
defines the method for specifying a tool comprising the step of
setting and registering by an operator tool criteria which
indicates which tool is appropriate for a particular machining
mode, displaying the registered criteria data, changing and
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
13
registering the criteria and rearranging and displaying the tool
data in accordance with said changed criteria. Appellant argues
that the Examiner is mischaracterizing the Tanaka teaching on
column 5, line 65 to column 6, line 3, as meeting Appellant's
claimed limitation of rearranging and displaying the tool data in
accordance with the changed criteria because Tanaka is only
teaching that the tool parameters may be changed to compensate
for wear. Appellant argues that as a result Tanaka does not
rearrange and display tool data but only replaces the data in a
field.
The Examiner argues on page 2 of the answer that since
Tanaka shows the ability to correct data and since it is known
that operators can make mistakes when entering data, Tanaka would
have inherently performed the step of rearranging the data when
an operator accidentally enters the wrong data at the wrong
place. Appellant responds to the Examiner’s argument on page 2
of the supplemental reply brief by arguing that even if the
Examiner is correct in how Tanaka would operate when correcting
errors, the location, an indication which tool is appropriate
for a particular machining mode, of the display data would
not change on the basis of changed tool criteria as recited
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
14
in claim 6. Rather, the operator would be changing the displayed
location of the data to merely correct the data.
We note that Appellant’s claim 6 recites a “tool specifying
method in an NC automatic programming system for specifying a
tool by displaying tool data ... comprising the steps of: ...
rearranging and displaying said tool data in accordance with said
changed criteria.” Tanaka teaches in column 5, lines 19-60, that
the tools are to be displayed in their machining order as
illustrated in Figure 8. Tanaka further teaches that, as shown
in Figure 8, a list of various parameters of the selected tools
are displayed. Tanaka teaches in column 5, lines 68, that the
parameters are initially set to zero as shown in Figure 8 and the
values for the parameters are entered by the operator key
switches and these entered values are shown in Figure 10. In
column 6, lines 1-3, Tanaka simply teaches that the values for
the parameter may be changed by the operator when the values
change due to wear, etc.
From these teachings, we fail to find any teaching that the
parameters are rearranged and displayed in accordance to the
changed values. The values are simply updated in the particular
field and remain in that field as shown in Figure 8 and Figure
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
15
10. Therefore, we do not find that these teachings of Tanaka
anticipated Appellant’s claims 6 and 7.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 3, 5 through 14 and 16 through 19 is
reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS
) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-4325
Application 08/006,957
16
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN,
MACPEAK and SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20037