Appeal No. 96-0998
Application No. 08/180,288
the amount of vertical acceleration detected). Column 1, lines
35-39; Column 4, lines 24-28.
DISCUSSION
As indicated above, the Examiner has maintained eight
grounds of rejection. We will address each one in turn.
1. Written description
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, on the ground that the specification as
originally filed lacked a written description of the presently
claimed subject matter. Examiner’s Answer at 5, lines 2-9.
Appellant does not include this rejection as an issue to be
decided on appeal. Appeal Brief at 4, line 19, through 5,
line 5. No argument is presented with respect to this rejection.
Appeal Brief at 5-16. Because Appellant does not contest it,
this rejection is affirmed.
2. Indefiniteness
Claims 11 and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention. Examiner’s Answer
at 5-6. Appellant does not include this rejection as an issue to
be decided on appeal. Appeal Brief at 4, line 19, through 5,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007