Appeal 2007-2980
Application 10/396,649
through Am1 in Feser’s figure 7. Hence, if the Appellant’s claim limitation
“reference value having an origin biased in the direction of the second
acceleration” encompasses a horizontal line from a previous peak, then in
Feser’s figure 7 the horizontal line at Am1 can be a reference value for peak
Am2 having an origin biased in the direction of the second acceleration (Am).
However, because, as discussed above regarding the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, that claim limitation can have other
meanings that render the scope of the claims unclear, Feser cannot be
applied to the claims. Consequently we do not reach the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-8, 11-18 and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description requirement, are affirmed. We sustain the objection to the
Specification under 35 U.S.C. § 132. Due to the indefiniteness of the claims
we do not reach the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013