Appeal No. 2003-1531 Page 6
Application No. 09/772,274
from the argument made for claim 19. Accordingly, we have determined that these
claims must be treated as falling with claim 21. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 22 to 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Brownlee.
Kawakami does not disclose the step of pumping oxygen into a vehicle cab in
response to an increase in the level of drowsiness as is recited in claim 24. The
examiner relies on Brownlee (col. 1, lines 40 to 46) for the teaching the step of pumping
oxygen into the vehicle cab to increase the awareness of the driver.
As Kawakami seeks to increase the awareness of the driver by various methods
and Brownlee teaches that one way of increasing the awareness of the driver is to
pump oxygen into the vehicle cab, it is our view that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to pump oxygen into the vehicle cab when it is
determined that the driver is drowsy. Therefore, we will sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 22. We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 24 as
claim 24 stands or falls with claim 22 (brief at page 3).
Appellant argues that were the teachings of Kawakami and Brownlee combined,
the oxygen would not be pumped into the vehicle cab in response to the determination
of drowsiness but in response to the determination that the oxygen in the vehicle cab
had reached a certain level. We do not agree. Kawakami discloses that when it is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007