Appeal 2007-2480
Application 10/352,385
1 erratic driving patterns is not a biological observation and the detected patterns are
2 not a biological phenomena. Driving pattern data that may have nothing to do with
3 a driver’s biological state cannot reasonably be considered “biometric data”.
4 We therefore conclude that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
5 case of obviousness of the invention claimed in the Appellants’ claims 56 and 57
6 over Sakoh in view of Lemelson.
7 Rejection of claims 58 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
8 over Sakoh in view of Kirmuss
9
10 The Appellants argue that neither Sakoh nor Kirmuss discloses capturing
11 occupant data (Br. 9). As pointed out above regarding the rejection of claim 55,
12 from which claims 58 and 59 depend, Sakoh discloses capturing occupant data
13 (Sakoh, col. 4, ll. 1-7; col. 27, ll. 4-8).
14 We therefore are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claims
15 58 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakoh in view of Kirmuss.
16 DECISION
17 The rejection of claims 55 and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Sakoh is
18 affirmed. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 32-34, 43-47 and 61
19 over Sakoh in view of Kithil, claims 42 and 53 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss,
20 claim 54 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss and Lemelson, claims 32-39, 48 and 49
21 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss and Sakoh, claims 40, 41 and 54 over Kithil in view
22 of Kirmuss, Sakoh and Lemelson, claims 50-52 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss,
23 Sakoh and McMahon, and claims 58 and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakoh in
24 view of Kirmuss are affirmed. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 56
25 and 57 over Sakoh in view of Lemelson is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013