Appeal No. 2000-0950 Page 4
Application No. 08/925,247
examiner entered this reply brief (see Paper No. 12, mailed April 17, 2000) without
comment.
On July 17, 2001, we remanded the application to the examiner to consider and
to respond to the argument raised in the reply brief (Paper No. 13). In the remand we
stated that if the examiner decides a supplemental examiner's answer is appropriate,
the examiner should compare claim 1 feature by feature with Ashrafi as required by
MPEP § 1208. In doing so, we requested that the examiner clearly detail how the
following five limitations of claim 1 are met by specifically referenced portions of Ashrafi:
(1) a second error between a previously estimated derivative of lateral velocity and a
predicted derivative of lateral velocity; (2) a third error between the measured lateral
acceleration and a predicted lateral acceleration; (3) estimating a vehicle slip angle
responsive to the estimate of lateral velocity; (4) determining a control command
responsive to the vehicle slip angle (i.e., the vehicle slip angle estimated in limitation (3)
above); and (5) controlling an actuator responsive to the control command (i.e., the
control command determined in limitation (4) above based upon the vehicle slip angle
estimated in limitation (3) above).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007