Appeal No. 96-1209
Application 08/168,805
language in Comerford’s disclosure. There does not appear to
be any other meaning when one is informed that a value falls
within a range continuously for a period than that a time
period is measured. Thus, Comerford does not cause the
dedicated processor to generate the high priority interrupt to
the CPU unless the predetermined value of acceleration has
been exceeded continuously for a period, i.e., for some
predetermined time period.
Appellant compares the flowcharts of Figure 8 of the
instant disclosure and Figure 3 of Comerford in order to show
that whereas the latter goes directly to interrupt if the
acceleration value is within a predetermined range, the former
goes on to a step of measuring a duration after the
determination of an acceleration value exceeding a
predetermined value, concluding that Comerford takes immediate
action, viz., parking the heads, without waiting any
prescribed period of time.
We disagree. When coupled with the disclosure at column
4 in Comerford, one would reasonably conclude that question
box 33 in Comerford’s Figure 3, i.e. “ACCEL IN RANGE?”
inherently includes the unasked question, “Is the acceleration
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007