Appeal 2007-2980
Application 10/396,649
Appellant’s original disclosure states that peak p3 is compared to
ROW1_MAX_MIN, not to the clipped p2 value (Spec. ¶ 25). Because
ROW1_MAX_MIN is toward p2 from p3, ROW1_MAX_MIN arguably can
be considered biased in the direction of p2. Because any other point in the
direction of p2 also could be considered biased in the direction of p2, the
claim limitation “having an origin biased in the direction of the second
acceleration” is unclear. It is a generic expression that arguably
encompasses the Appellant’s claim interpretation but also encompasses an
undeterminable number of other claim interpretations.
The last step of claim 1 is:
(6) increasing a crash-pulse energy term in response to the third
acceleration increasing above the reference value of said step (5).
Step (5) recites that the reference value has an origin biased in the direction
of the second acceleration. The Appellant’s Specification, however, states
that “[w]here acceleration peak 3 crosses the ROW1_MAX_MIN level
initiates an increase in the CPE term (CPE 1)…” (Spec. ¶ 25). Thus, the
Specification indicates that the reference value that p3 must exceed in
step (6) to increase the crash-pulse energy term is ROW1_MAX_MIN, not
the horizontal clipped p2 line as apparently argued by the Appellant with
respect to step (5). Arguably, like the horizontal clipped p2 line,
ROW1_MAX_MIN is biased in the direction of p2, but so is any other value
in the p2 direction.
The Appellant argues that the reference value in step (6) to which p3
is compared is the vertical line with horizontal dashes to the left of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013