Appeal 2007-2980
Application 10/396,649
Acceleration peak p3 is in the crash direction and exceeds the
ROW1_MAX_MIN level to again qualify for a minimum significant
level. Where acceleration peak p3 crosses the ROW_1_MAX_MIN
level initiates an increase in the CPR term (CPE1) because the energy
of [p3] is greater than p1 when considering the origin of p3 and the
time interval between p1 and p3.
The origin of p3 referred to appears to be the horizontal line at the lower end
of the line having circles in it that extends downwardly from p3 in figure 4.
That horizontal line is the p2 peak clipped to approximately half (or other
percentage) of the previous peak (p1) size (Spec. ¶ 24).
The added limitation “having an origin biased in the direction of the
second acceleration” is broader than the original disclosure. It encompasses
not only the disclosed clipped p2 peak but also any other value that
arguably can be considered biased in the direction of p2.
The Appellant argues that the reference value in step (5) is the vertical
line having horizontal dashes through p2 in figure 4 (Br. 7). 4 The origin of
the reference value, the Appellant argues, is the horizontal line above p2 in
figure 4, i.e., p2 clipped to approximately 50% of p1. See id. Apparently
the Appellant is arguing that the reference value is the horizontal clipped p2
line. Otherwise, it is not clear which point on the vertical line with
horizontal dashes through p2 is the reference value. Regardless, the
3 References herein to figure 4 are to the figure as amended August 22,
2005.
4 The Appellant does not include the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, in the Appellant’s list of rejections (Br. 8). However, because the
Appellant has set forth the Appellant’s argued meaning of the claims (Br. 7-
8), we address the claim clarity issue.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013