Appeal No. 2002-1867
Application No. 08/859,635
Appellants’ argument directed to taking into account
differences in the normal driving characteristics of different
drivers is not persuasive since it is not based on any particular
claim limitation.
With regard to claim 12, appellants argue that the added
limitation that the adaptation is carried out “while the vehicle
is being operated...” distinguishes over Davidian since
Davidian’s driver alertness test is administered before the
vehicle is started. Again, we agree with the examiner that the
broad subject matter of claim 12 is made obvious by Davidian.
Claim 12 does not require that the vehicle actually be moving.
When Davidian’s alertness test is administered, it is done so by
pressing certain buttons (see test device 60 for testing driver
reaction time), attached to control panel 6. Since the control
panel is part of the vehicle, the driver alertness test “is
carried out while the vehicle is being operated by the particular
driver,” as claimed.
Accordingly, since we find that the examiner has set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness which has not been successfully
rebutted by appellants, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 2 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007