Appeal 2006-3087
Application 09/821,553
customer inputted requirement, from a list of requirements, into the CSD
design. The list of requirements includes “rate capacity.” Claim 1
additionally recites an interface which passes the requirements from the
customer to the model, where the interface hides the model. Further, claim 1
recites that the function of the model is to generate a design.
The term “rate capability” as used in the claim is not defined in
Appellants’ specification. We hold that one skilled in the art would consider
this to be data relating to the batteries’ capability to provide current over a
given time period at a given rate, e.g., a discharge rate or the amp/hour rating
of the battery.
We consider the scope of the term “customer,” in the context of the
claim, as an entity that inputs the requirements for the CSD device which the
model uses to generate the CSD design. While we consider the scope of the
term customer to include a person, we decline to limit the meaning of the
term to be a person only, as to do so would be inconsistent with Appellants’
specification. Page 2 of Appellants’ specification discusses a customer as
being a corporation.
Further, we note that claim 1 recites no limitation as to who the
models are hidden from or how they are hidden. Thus, we consider the
scope of the claim to be broad, and includes hiding the model by not
displaying the model.
As discussed supra, we find that Notten teaches a system which
makes use of models to simulate operation of a battery, and can be used in
the design of a battery. While Notten does not refer to the user of the system
as a customer, we nonetheless find that Notten teaches an entity that inputs
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013