Appeal No. 2001-2393
Application No. 09/197,878
in appealed claims 1 and 6, respectively. In response to the
appellant’s ostensibly accurate observation that Foo does not
teach determining the slope of a filtered acceleration signal
and periodically adjusting the deployment threshold based on
the determined slope, the examiner states that
Displacement, Velocity and Acceleration are related
with respect to time, wherein velocity is a change
in displacement with respect to time and
acceleration is a change is [sic: in] velocity with
respect to time. Thus, one who comes with an
invention that uses acceleration instead of velocity
as may have [been] claimed in another patent
infringes that patent if the mere difference is in
the use of the velocity as opposed to the
acceleration without any modification in the process
[answer, pages 8 and 9].
Be this as it may, it does not cogently explain how or
why Foo meets the claim limitations at issue.
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s determination
that each of the applied references meets all of the
limitations in claims 1 and 6 is not well taken. Accordingly,
we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1
and 6, and of dependent claims 2 through 5 and 7 through 10,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007