Cases claims

B9.1 Configuration Management Recall from Section 9.3.4.3 that one of the objectives of SAV assurance was configuration consistency. Essentially, does the evidence produced throughout the SAV lifecycle have traceability to the delivered SAV product For example, what is the relevance of a safety case claim made from SAV lifecycle data that cannot be traced or be shown to be consistent with the version of SAV being delivered Clearly the relevance is low, and would not form a robust argument in the safety case. 

A major challenge in developing a good safety case is to determine what type of evidence and how much of this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the safety case claims. 

The estimated likelihood of gross failure needs to be very low or the safety case claims gross failure can be discounted. 

As indicated in Figure 4, the early transactinide elements find their place back in the main body of the Periodic Table. The discoverers of the currendy known transactinide elements, suggested names and symbols, and dates of discovery are Hsted in Table 10 (19). Because there are competing claims for the discovery of these elements, the two groups of discoverers in each case have suggested names for elements 104 and 105. In the case of elements 106—109, names for the elements have not been suggested in order to avoid another dupHcation. 

Oligomeric Flame Retardants. There are several oligomeric flame retardants. The principal advantage claimed for these materials is their resistance to bloom and plate-out. In some cases they are used at levels high enough that the resulting flame-retarded resia should properly be viewed as a polymer blend or alloy. AH of the available oligomeric flame retardants are brominated (Table 6). 

Nutritional Labeling Descriptors. In order to avoid confusion, descriptive terms must be accompanied by definitions which adequately explain the terms. In the case of nutrition-related claims, analytical sampling offers a means of assuring the accuracy of the stated claims. The USDA s FSIS has proposed a Hst of descriptors relevant for meat and poultry products (Table 3). 

Other concerns which may necessitate a review of a patent after issuance include the discovery of prior art which was not uncovered during the examination of the patent appHcation. A deterrnination should be made as to whether or not the claims in the issued patent are too broad when viewed in light of this prior art. It may also be the case that someone who participated in the examination of the patent appHcation discovered prior patents, Hterature, or activities which they knew of but did not cite to the patent examiner. In such an instance, this prior art must also be reviewed in light of the patent claims to determine whether the claims are too broad. 

Most new patent cases of interest are pubHshed by at least one of the U.S., European, or Japanese patent offices, and WIPO (PCT). Japan presents problems for those not able to read Japanese, but the U.S. Official Ga tte (with representative claims) and PCT Ga tte (with English-language abstracts) can be in one s hands within a week of patent pubHcation. Similar timing is available for the European Patent Office bulletin which contains trilingual tides and the on-line EPAT file and various CD-ROM products. A highly effective alerting program can be developed from a combination of these methods. 

Mass Spectrometry. Field desorption mass spectrometry has been used to analy2e PPO (179). Average molecular weight parameters (M and could be determined using either protonated (MH + ) or cation attachment (MNa + ) ions. Good agreement was found between fdms and data supphed by the manufacturer, usually less than 5% difference in all cases up to about 3000 amu. Laser desorption Fourier transform mass spectrometry was used to measure PPG ion and it was claimed that ions up to m/2 9700 (PEG) can be analy2ed by this method (180). 

Information about a food s potassium content is required on the nutrition facts panel only if the food contains added potassium as a nutrient or if claims about it as a nutrient appear on the label. In all other cases, it is voluntary. The recommended daily value for potassium is 3500 mg. The following labels have been designated for foods high potassium (700 mg or more per serving) good source of potassium (350—665 mg per serving) more or added potassium (at least 350 mg more per serving than the reference food) (43). 

---