Appeal 2007-2980
Application 10/396,649
(Br. 9). Because the Appellant does not point with reasonable specificity to
any relied-upon portion of the Specification, that argument is not persuasive.
The Examiner argues that “That is, the origin of the first peak
reference value is biased in the direction of the second peak” added by
amendment (filed Aug. 22, 2005) to Specification paragraph 25 is new
matter (Ans. 5). The Appellant argues that “Appellant’s added statement
‘that is, the origin of the first peak reference value is biased in the direction
of the second peak’ simply recites what Appellant had previously stated in a
more concise sentence” (Br. 9). The previous sentence originally read:
“Where acceleration peak p3 crosses the ROW1_MAX_MIN level initiates
an increase in the CPE term (CPE1) because the energy of [sic] is greater
than p1 when considering the origin of p3 and the time interval between p1
and p3.” The Appellant amended that sentence to read: “Where acceleration
peak p3 increases above the first peak reference value the CPE term (CPE1)
is increased because the energy is greater than p1 when considering the
origin of p3 and the time interval between p1 and p3.” Both of those
sentences pertain to the CPE term increasing when acceleration peak p3
crosses the first peak reference value which is ROW1_MAX_MIN. It does
not follow from either the original or the modified sentence that the origin of
the first peak reference value is biased in the direction of the second peak as
stated in the next sentence added by amendment. The added sentence is
broader and introduces the concept of the first peak reference value, rather
than being limited to ROW1_MAX_MIN, being any value biased in the
direction of the second peak. Hence, the added sentence adds new matter to
the Specification.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013