Appeal No. 1998-2869
Application 08/453,496
not include and is never concerned with a driving state-
determining means for determining whether or not the driving
state of the vehicle driver is normal/abnormal as defined in
claims 1 and 12. Appellants point out that the yaw motion
control device of Shiraishi ‘636 automatically controls the
vehicle’s yaw rate according to quantitative differences or
slippages between the reference yaw rate and a detected,
actual yaw rate of the vehicle. Shiraishi’s yaw motion
control system is effectively based on a presumption that the
driver is driving normally. See pages 8 through 11 of
Appellants’ brief.
On page 10 of the Examiner’s answer, the Examiner agrees
that Shiraishi ‘636 does not address a consideration of
whether the vehicle driver is driving normally or abnormally.
The Examiner argues that “independent claims 1 and 12 do not
claim or detailedly describe what and how to define the
normal/abnormal behavior parameter from a driver or human,
such as a relationship between the driver’s intentions and
vehicle movement on the road so that the system detecting
vehicle driver is driving normally or abnormally.” The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007