Ex Parte Holbrook et al - Page 5

             Appeal 2007-0818                                                                                  
             Application 10/601,448                                                                            

        1    lower than a threshold value for a period of time.  (Raad, col. 6, ll. 3-20).  Raad               
        2    does not teach use of a second lower threshold of roll to determine when to resume                
        3    operation, but rather uses the same threshold and a time delay as a condition                     
        4    precedent for resuming operation.                                                                 
        5          Karnopp teaches an active suspension for a vehicle.  The system makes use                   
        6    of active and passive dampers to improve the ride dynamics of the vehicle.                        
        7    (Karnopp, col. 2, ll. 57-65).  We do not find that Karnopp teaches or suggests                    
        8    disabling the system when the vehicle acceleration is above a threshold value and                 
        9    then resuming operation when the vehicle acceleration is at or below a second                     
       10    lower value.                                                                                      
       11                                     ANALYSIS                                                         
       12          Appellants’ claim 24 recites “b) discontinuing said leveling action upon the                
       13    vehicle acceleration exceeding a first pre-determined acceleration threshold prior                
       14    to said suspension system achieving said pre-determined height condition; c)                      
       15    waiting until the vehicle acceleration decreases below a second pre-determined                    
       16    acceleration threshold that is less than said first pre-determined threshold; and, d)             
       17    continuing said leveling action adjusting said suspension system toward said pre-                 
       18    determined height condition.”  Claim 24 does not directly recite that step d),                    
       19    continuing said leveling action, is in response to the vehicle acceleration                       
       20    decreasing below a second pre-determined value.  However, it is clear, interpreting               
       21    the claim term “continuing” of step d) in light of the Specification, that step d) is             
       22    performed in order, so that step d), the step of continuing said level action, is                 
       23    performed after step c), the step of “waiting until the vehicle acceleration decreases            
       24    below a second pre-determined acceleration threshold.”  Thus, the scope of claim                  
       25    24 includes that vehicle leveling is stopped when the measured vehicle acceleration               
       26    is above a first threshold value and is not resumed until the vehicle acceleration is             

                                                       5                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013