Appeal No. 2006-2480
Application No. 10/384,862
The disclosed invention pertains to automatically warning inattentive
drivers. Specifically, the magnitude of a generated warning signal varies
depending on a variable representing the degree of driver inattentiveness. Thus,
the higher likelihood that a driver is inattentive, the more clearly the driver is
alerted to the warning. Such a warning is rarely perceived as intrusive by an
alert driver, yet sufficiently warns an inattentive driver.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method for warning a driver, comprising:
implementing a warning by at least one of an acoustic, an optical
and a haptic indicator;
deriving a variable that represents a degree of a driver's
inattentiveness, from at least one operating variable; and
generating a warning signal, wherein a magnitude of the warning
signal varies depending upon the variable that represents the degree of
driver inattentiveness.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Gutta et al. (Gutta) 6,496,117 Dec. 17, 2002
Bevan et al. (Bevan) 6,661,345 Dec. 9, 2003
(filed Oct. 19, 2000)
The following rejections are on appeal before us:1
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bevan.
1 We note that the examiner’s answer does not expressly state the examiner’s grounds of
rejection, but instead refers to a previous office action [answer, page 3]. Such incorporations by
reference, however, are improper under current practice. See MPEP § 1207.02 (“An examiner's
answer should not refer, either directly or indirectly, to any prior Office action without fully
restating the point relied on in the answer.”). See also Ex parte Metcalf, 67 USPQ2d 1633, 1635
n.1 (B.P.A.I. 2003).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007