Appeal 2007-2980
Application 10/396,649
vertical line with circles ending at p3 in figure 4 (Br. 7). That vertical line
with horizontal dashes extends between the horizontal clipped p2 line and
ROW1_MAX_MIN. What determines whether the crash-pulse energy term
is increased, however, is the relationship of p3 to ROW1_MAX_MIN
(Spec. ¶ 25), not a line origin. Regardless, even if the vertical line with
horizontal dashes can somehow be considered a reference value, the claim 1
language “origin biased in the direction of the second acceleration”
encompasses an origin at any point on that line and any other origin in the p2
direction. For this additional reason the “origin biased in the direction of the
second acceleration” limitation renders the scope of claim 1 unclear.
The Appellant’s claim 12 differs from claim 1 by reciting that the
third acceleration is in a direction generally the same as the first
acceleration. That limitation appears to be implicit in claim 1 because, as
disclosed in the Appellant’s Specification (Spec. ¶¶ 23 and 25), both the first
and third accelerations are in the crash direction. Regardless, as in claim 1,
“origin biased in the direction of the second acceleration” renders claim 12
indefinite.
The Examiner argues that it is unclear whether “origin” refers to
magnitude or the timing (Ans. 6).5 The Appellant responds (Br. 10):
As to it not being clear if the original [sic, origin] stands for the
“magnitude” or the “timing,” the entirety of the specification makes
this clear. Note labels t0, “crash direction” and “anti-crash direction.”
5 This argument was set forth by the Examiner with respect to the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description (Ans. 6), but we
discuss it with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, because it is a claim clarity issue.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013