Appeal 2007-2480
Application 10/352,385
1 The Appellants argue, regarding claims 40 and 41, that Lemelson does not
2 sense and record biometric data (Br. 8).1 “Biometric” means of, relating to, or
3 concerned with the statistical analysis of biological observations and phenomena,2
4 and the Appellants use biometric sensors to recognize a state of drowsiness of a
5 driver (Spec. ¶ 27). Hence, the Appellants’ argument is not convincing in view of
6 Kithil’s disclosure of using a sensor array to detect head nodding and other head
7 motion which correlates with driver sleepiness (Kithil, col. 15, ll. 48-56).
8 Thus, we are not convinced of reversible error in the rejections under
9 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 40, 41, and 54 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss, Sakoh,
10 and Lemelson, and claims 50-52 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss, Sakoh and
11 McMahon.
12 Rejection of claims 56 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
13 over Sakoh in view of Lemelson
14
15 Claim 56 and its dependent claim 57 require a data capture module that
16 captures biometric data.
17 The Examiner argues, regarding Lemelson’s ¶ 0174, that “[m]easuring
18 erratic driving to determine drowsiness is clearly determining the biological state
19 of the driver, and that makes that data ‘biometric data’, even if there are other uses
20 for that data” (Ans. 12). As indicated by the definition of “biometric” set forth
21 above, biometric data is data of, relating to, or concerned with the statistical
22 analysis of biological observations and phenomena. Lemelson’s detection of
1 The Appellants include claim 54 in their argument the above-discussed rejection
of claims 42 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss. The
Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claims 50-52 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss, Sakoh, and McMahon (Br. 9).
2 Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 111 (G. & C. Merriam 1973).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013