Appeal No. 1999-0245
Application No. 08/720,268
it is quite clear to us, as earlier indicated, that those skilled
in the art would have understood what was known in the art that
supported the means plus function language at issue in claims 1,
11, and 16, i.e., means for determining liquid level height based
upon echo amplitude and time delay. Thus, we determine that
claims 1, 11, and 16 are definite.
It is also our conclusion that the content of claim 8 is
definite in meaning. Contrary to the examiner’s viewpoint, and
akin to appellant’s understanding (main brief, page 20), we
consider the language of claim 8 to be definite in that one
having skill in the art at issue would comprehend, on the basis
of the underlying specification and the Trudeau teaching,6 what
was encompassed by a control electronic means activating a
transducer to transmit acoustic energy “in short pulses and at a
repetition rate that is high relative to liquid surface
disturbances”, as claimed.
6
6 On pages 4 through 6 of the present specification, a
higher repetition rate of transmitted acoustic energy (pulses) is
described to compensate for a rough or turbulent surface, while
the Trudeau document discusses repeated interrogation (repetition
rate) of sensors (column 3, lines 51 through 54).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007