Appeal No. 2000-0950 Page 3
Application No. 08/925,247
claimed step of "estimating a vehicle slip angle responsive to the estimate of lateral
velocity" could be found.
In the brief (Paper No. 9, filed December 17, 1999), the appellant argued that the
claimed "second error between a previously estimated derivative of lateral velocity and
a predicted derivative of lateral velocity" is not disclosed by Ashrafi at column 7, lines
50-67, and column 8, lines 1-17.
In the response to argument section of the answer (Paper No. 10, mailed
January 18, 2000), the examiner stated that the claimed "second error between a
previously estimated derivative of lateral velocity and a predicted derivative of lateral
velocity" is disclosed by Ashrafi at column 8, lines 5-17 and lines 53-61.
In the reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed March 20, 2000), the appellant provided his
argument as to why the claimed "second error between a previously estimated
derivative of lateral velocity and a predicted derivative of lateral velocity" is not
disclosed by Ashrafi at column 8, lines 5-17 and lines 53-61. In addition, the appellant
noted that the examiner had not compared the rejected claim feature by feature with
Ashrafi as required by MPEP § 1208 (Seventh Edition, Rev. 1, Feb. 2000). The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007