Appeal No. 2001-1269
Application No. 08/939,685
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 2, 5 and 11 is
likewise sustained because appellants have not presented any
separate patentability arguments for these claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 3 is reversed
because the velocity curves disclosed by Scholten (Figure 4)
do not show “a constant velocity during the easement period”
discussed supra. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim
6 is reversed because Scholten does not create the noted
easement period during the acceleration period “by holding
the pulse rate at a predetermined pulse rate for a time
period which is longer than a time period for preceding and
succeeding pulse rates.” The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 12 is reversed because the acceleration chart in
Scholten does not show “a second easement period . . .
additionally provided in the acceleration period.”
For the reason set forth supra for claim 3, the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 7 through 10, 14 and
21 is reversed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007