Bysoft 7 tutorial free#
On the contrary, Bystronic held that it could only be the parts themselves which have a free from shape, without any indication whatsoever of the envisaged nesting technique. In a nutshell, Tomologic held that the claim requires forming of a cluster by means of free from nesting. Free form nesting is a technique which - in contrast to «rectangular nesting» or «rectangular bounding box nesting» - arranges free form parts in a space-saving manner, based on perimeter segments rather than outer perimeter boxes. In Tomologic’s view, this was a reference to «free form nesting». Further, the correct understanding of (rules for the forming of a cluster of parts with) «free form shapes» in the characterizing part of the claim was a big issue in the hearing. It appears that the introduction of «one cut made by» may have caused an issue under Art. Method for machine cutting several parts out of a piece of material using a beam cutting technology, said method providing a set of controlling rules and variables for cutting two dimensional shapes or patterns, where one rule or a combination of several rules are used for the cutting operation depending on the shape or pattern to be cut, said shape or pattern forming said parts out of said piece of material, characterised in that said set of controlling rules comprises rules for the forming of a cluster of parts with free form shapes, said parts being positioned so close to each other so that only the thickness of one cut made by the cutting beam is found between adjacent parts whenever the shape of said parts allows it. Claim 1 of EP 864 as granted reads as follows (underlined feature amended over claim 1 as originally filed potentially distinguishing feature over the prior art highlighted in yellow): On the merits of the case, we understand that the judge-rapporteur’s expert opinion had been in favor of Bystronic, at least to the extent nullity of EP 864 is concerned. Furthermore, flip chart collages, once they are completed, shall form part of the minutes and should not be re-arranged too heavily in later pleadings. But how tho deal with the table-top microphone in such situations? Any drawer / presenter should be prepared to be reprimanded by the court clerk to use the microphone. In our perception, flipcharts are generally welcomed by the court. Tomologic used flipchart sketches and short films in further support of the PPT presentation. The presiding judge reminded the parties that this case was already extraordinarily voluminous, even before oral pleadings, and that there was no need to repeat the assertions already made in writing. Even though Bystronic had not commented on that Swedish document, the court felt «not at ease» with having a document on file which is not comprehensible for the judges.īoth parties gave PPT presentations. As an introductory remark, the presiding judge invited Tomologic to provide a translation of a Swedish decision that had been submitted earlier unfortunately, it was not indicated in the hearing what that decision was all about.
0 kommentar(er)
