Appeal No. 96-1209
Application 08/168,805
Comerford, at column 4, lines 11-15, that
[w]hen the value of the calculated acceleration
falls within the range continuously for a period
suggesting a fall is in progress, the dedicated
processor 24 generates a high priority interrupt to
the CPU 26 [emphasis ours]
clearly suggests, in our view, that Comerford does take into
account, in the determination of whether to effect a control,
a time period during which the acceleration exceeds a
threshold level.
While appellant urges us to consider the disclosure of
Comerford as a whole, considering that a time period is never
mentioned in the summary of the invention or in the claims, we
cannot ignore the disclosure, supra, at column 4. While the
summary and/or the claims may only describe the invention of
Comerford broadly, the section of the specification, i.e.
column 4, setting forth the details of the invention, clearly
indicates that some time period, wherein the acceleration
value falls within a predetermined range, is measured. We
cannot find any other reasonable interpretation of the quoted
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007