Appeal No. 96-0998
Application No. 08/180,288
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc).
Appellant relies on the claim phrase “impulse voltage” but
the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses a continuously
flux coupled arrangement. Tognola’s motion detector will respond
to an impact with an impulse voltage as broadly recited. Column
4, lines 31-38. Appellant’s specification does not define
“impulse voltage.” Specification at 4, lines 17-21 and at 6,
lines 9-15.
We do not interpret the claim terms “intermediate” or “into”
to require that the moveable magnet’s neutral position be
entirely outside of the coil. Thus, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument regarding the movable magnetic member being
positioned “outside” of the coil. Appeal Brief at 13, lines 19-
24. In our view, Tognola’s coil 17 is positioned intermediate
(between) moveable magnet 19 and fixed magnet 21 as shown in
Tognola’s Figure 1 such that the moveable magnet will move into
the coil to generate an impulse voltage when subject to an impact
force sufficient to overcome the repelling magnetic force as
recited.
We note that the voltage generating and pick off means is
not recited in means plus function form. To invoke the sixth
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007