Appeal No. 2002-1668 Page 9
Application No. 09/531,666
recapture surrendered subject matter (final rejection (Paper No. 11, mailed May 30,
2001), page 2). Specifically, the examiner states:
Applicant's claims exceed the scope of the Examiner's Reasons for
Allowance in Paper number 6 of original application 08/726,082.
Specifically, in claim 19, the addition of "means for determining a vehicle
acceleration" in line 11, and the replacement of the words "sensed" with
"determined" in line 13 broaden the claim. Likewise, in claim 23, the addition of
"means for determining a vehicle deceleration" and replacing "sensed" with
"determined" broaden this claim. Also, the same changes to claims 28 and 32
render them broader than the original claims.
Since applicant did not comment on the examiner's Reasons for
Allowance in the original application, which recited the sensing of vehicle
acceleration as the distinguishing patentable feature, applicant is restricted to the
limitations therein. See MPEP 1412.02.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 18, mailed February 27, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 17, filed December 31, 2001) and
reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed April 26, 2002) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007