Appeal No. 2001-2454 Page 6
Application No. 09/267,355
a reasonable degree of precision and particularity and the metes and bounds of the
claims would not be determinable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
According to the specification, the invention includes a manual adjustable brake
operating device that provides a manual braking signal “as an alternative to the
automatic braking controller” (page 4). The manual brake operating device is described
on page 5 as means “such as a steering column hand brake lever,” which is operated
by the driver (see page 9, line 23). Considering this in the context of the objectives and
operation of the appellants’ invention provided in the specification, as well as the fact
that the foot-operated service brake is not mentioned in the explanation of the invention
in the specification, the invention would appear not to encompass a signal from any
manual braking device, but only from a manual device other than the usual foot-
operated service brakes. This conclusion finds support in the Appeal Brief, where the
manual braking signal is described as being “generated by a manual intervention” “on
demand by the driver” (page 5). Credence also is lent to this conclusion by considering
that the invention calls for the manual braking signal to be compared to a maximum
acceptable braking input to the turbine to prevent damage thereto, which would not
seem to be necessary or feasible if the signal were generated as a result of the
application of the service brakes.
We are mindful that the appellant is free to claim his invention in broad terms,
and that he is entitled to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007