Appeal No. 1998-2869
Application 08/453,496
to find such a limitation being anticipated by Shiraishi ‘636.
Furthermore, we find that the Examiner has erred in
interpreting the claims as not requiring a driving state
determining means which determines the state of the driver as
being normal or abnormal. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 12 and 17 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
Furthermore, we note that claim 16 is dependent upon
claim 12 and the Examiner has relied on Shiraishi ‘636 for the
limitations found in claim 12. Therefore, for the reasons
given above, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007