Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
We note that claim 1 requires the following steps:
(a) storing a crash classification mask for each of a
plurality of crash classifications, each such mask comprising a
set of predetermined remote crash sensor values characteristic of
the respective crash classification and a restraint deployment
code identifying which of the restraints should be deployed for
the respective crash classification;
(b) collecting crash severity measurements from the remote
crash sensors in the course of a crash event, and storing such
measurements in a crash characterization table;
(c) consecutively applying said crash classification masks
to said crash characterization table, and in the event of a match
between the predetermined values of a given crash classification
mask and the sensor measurements stored in said crash
characterization table, identifying a restraint deployment code
from such given crash classification mask; and
(d) analyzing the identified restraint deployment code to
determine which of said plurality of restraints to deploy.
We find that Hermann does not expressly teach Appellants'
claimed steps. Our reviewing court states: "[I]f the prior art
reference does not expressly set forth a particular element of
the claim, that reference still may anticipate if the element is
'inherent' in its disclosure." In re Robertson, supra, 169 F.3d
743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 citing Continental Can Co. v.
Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). Therefore, the question presented to us is whether
Hermann inherently discloses each and every step in claim 1. We
note that step (a) of Appellants' claim 1 requires the limitation
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007