Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for their
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the Examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
Appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief.
We affirm-in-part.
We consider the various groups of claims rejected under
three different sets of references.
Ell
In response to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
� 102 (final rejection at page 2), Appellants argue, (brief at
page 6) that “[t]he current on line 30 [in Ell] is not the
acceleration signal representative of the acceleration of a
movable element disclosed and claimed in this application.”
Appellants further argue (id.) that “[t]he reference [Ell] does
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007