Ex Parte Andres - Page 9


                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