Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
Wessels and Dalum respond to the foregoing claim limitations.2
Although these comments inaccurately represent the scope of
claim 1 and the content of the appellant’s argument, they do
illuminate the examiner’s position with respect to the “slope”
limitations: “in the applied [Wessels and Dalum] patents . . .
the slope of the filtered acceleration is ))V” (answer, page
7). As pointed out above, however, the “))V” signal disclosed
by Wessels and Dalum denotes or represents the cumulative
change in the filtered acceleration signal )V, not its slope
or rate of change. Thus, the examiner’s position that Wessels
and Dalum are anticipatory
with respect to the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 6
rests on an unsound finding which is clearly at odds with the
actual teachings of these references.
Foo also discloses a vehicular restraint system and
method having some similarity to the system and method recited
Contrary to prescribed USPTO practice (see MPEP 1208), the2
explanations of the rejections on pages 3 through 7 in the answer fail to
specify how each of the limitations in the appealed claims is met by the
applied references.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007