Appeal No. 1997-2478
Application 08/361,554
apparatus for an automotive vehicle, and in particular to a
suspension control apparatus that utilizes road roughness in
determining how to adjust the vehicle’s suspension. In
appellants’ apparatus, a processing means judges the roughness
of the road surface based on an upward and downward
acceleration signal of the vehicle. Claim 18, a copy of which
is found in an appendix to appellants’ brief, is illustrative
of the appealed subject matter.2
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in
support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Kawagoe et al (Kawagoe) 4,827,416 May
2, 1989
Akatsu et al (Akatsu) 4,872,701 Oct.
10, 1989
Hiwatashi et al (Hiwatashi) 4,934,731 Jun.
19, 1990
Claims 18-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
2Each of the independent claims on appeal calls for processing means for
“detecting” an upward absolute velocity and a downward absolute velocity. It is clear
from a reading of appellants’ specification, however, that upward and downward absolute
velocity are not directed detected, but rather derived from a signal from acceleration
sensor 5 that is representative of upward and downward acceleration, which signal is
integrated by integrator circuit 41 to provide the upward and downward absolute velocity
called for in the claims. Accordingly, we understand each of the independent claims on
appeal as calling for processing means for deriving an upward absolute velocity and a
downward absolute velocity from a signal representative of upward and downward
acceleration. This claim ambiguity is worthy of correction in the event of further
prosecution.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007