Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex Parte Andres - Page 7
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2007 > Ex Parte Andres - Page 7
Appeal 2007-2980
Application 10/396,649
Appellant also labels the timing bars TL0, TL1, etc., to illustrate the
time periods as discussed in the specification.
As indicated in the Appellant’s figure 4, “t0” and the timing bars pertain to
time whereas “crash direction” and “anti-crash direction” pertain to
magnitude. Hence, the Appellant’s argument that mixes t0, “crash
direction”, “anti-crash direction”, TL0 and TL1 supports the Examiner’s
argument that it is unclear whether “origin” pertains to time or magnitude.
For the above reasons the Appellant’s independent claims 1 and 12
and dependent claims 2-8, 11, 13-18 and 21-27 fail to comply with the
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, claim clarity requirement.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner argues that the Appellant’s original disclosure does not
provide adequate written descriptive support for “reference value having an
origin biased in the direction of the second acceleration” in step (5) of
independent claims 1 and 12 (Ans. 10). The Appellant argues that “[a]s
illustrated in Figure 4, the horizontal line which cuts across peak P2 defines
the origin that is biased in the direction of the second acceleration” (Br. 10).
That line may be an origin biased in the direction acceleration, but it does
not define the origin biased in the direction of the second acceleration. Any
point in the direction of the second acceleration arguably can also be an
origin biased in the direction of the second acceleration. The Appellant’s
original disclosure does not provide adequate written descriptive support for
that breadth of “reference value having an origin biased in the direction of
the second acceleration” added by amendment (filed August 22, 2005).
7
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
