Appeal 2007-2480
Application 10/352,385
1 synchronization with the image without a synchronization lag, thereby enabling
2 analysis of an objective condition based not only on the image (Sakoh, col. 4, ll. 1-
3 7; col. 27, ll. 4-8) indicates that Sakoh uses an occupant data sensor that is
4 independent of the video data and continuously synchronizes that occupant data
5 and the video data.
6 We therefore are not convinced of reversible error the rejection of claims 55
7 and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sakoh.
8 Rejection of claims 32-34, 43-47 and 61
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakoh in view of Kithil
10
11 Kithil discloses
12 an apparatus for determining and analyzing characteristics of a motor
13 vehicle seating position occupiable by an occupant, the apparatus
14 comprising a roof-mounted capacitive coupling sensor array and circuitry for
15 performing a function by means of the array. The functions covered by the
16 invention include: providing a record of head acceleration of the occupant;
17 notifying authorities of a total number of occupants in the motor vehicle; ….
18 [Kithil, col. 5, ll. 57-65.]
19 * * *
20 In the case of head injuries caused by accidents, neurological diagnosis
21 would be enhanced by a record of head acceleration. [Kithil, col. 15, ll. 58-
22 60.]
23
24 Kithil’s sensors also can “detect head nodding and other head motion which
25 correlates to sleepiness of a driver” (Kithil, col. 15, ll. 48-50).
26 The Appellants argue that Sakoh stores the state of a crash test dummy, and
27 that there is no need to use Kithil’s apparatus to indicate the number or positions of
28 crash test dummy passengers because they are known by those performing the
29 crash test (Br. 6). Sakoh is not limited to test dummies but, rather, pertains to
30 “storing a state of a driver (or dummy)” (Sakoh, col. 1, ll. 20-21).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013