Appeal 2007-2980
Application 10/396,649
description requirement;1 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Feser.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs.2 Due to the indefiniteness of the claims we do not reach the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The first five steps of the Appellant’s claim 1 require:
(1) measuring a first acceleration (p1 in figure 4), 3
(2) measuring a second acceleration in a direction generally opposite
the first acceleration (p2 in figure 4),
(3) measuring a third acceleration (p3 in figure 4),
(4) determining if the first acceleration exceeds a predetermined
acceleration (ROW1_MAX_MIN in figure 4 (Spec. ¶ 25; Br. 7)),
(5) comparing the third acceleration to a reference value, the reference
value having an origin biased in the direction of the second
acceleration….
In comparing step (5) the limitation “a reference value, the reference
value having an origin biased in the direction of the second acceleration”
was added by amendment (filed August 22, 2005). Regarding the
comparing step the Specification states (Spec. ¶ 25):
1 The Examiner makes a corresponding objection to the Specification under
35 U.S.C. § 132 (Ans. 4-5).
2 We also sustain the objection to the Specification under 35 U.S.C. § 132.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013