Appeal No. 2006-2480
Application No. 10/384,862
inattentiveness to produce an alarm that increases in magnitude after further
determining that the driver has not responded to the first level of warning [final
rejection, pages 2 and 3].
Appellant argues that Bevan merely teaches that certain parameters are
more strongly correlated to alertness than others, and such parameters are
weighted accordingly [brief, pages 8 and 9]. Appellant emphasizes, however,
that Bevan does not teach weighting parameters as a function of a parameter’s
correlation to a particular degree of alertness as claimed [brief, page 9].
Appellant also argues that the magnitude of the warning signal in Bevan
remains constant for the initial round of warning regardless of the degree of
inattentiveness. According to appellant, the warning signal’s magnitude changes
only when there is no change in the degree of driver inattentiveness (i.e., when
the driver does not respond to the initial round of warning) [brief, pages 9 and 10;
reply brief, pages 2 and 4].
The examiner responds that the magnitude of Bevan’s warning signal
varies according to the degree of driver inattentiveness since the warning signal’s
magnitude changes based on changes in detected driver “variables” (e.g., eye
blinking, head nodding, etc.) [answer, page 4]. The examiner maintains that
Bevan continuously monitors such “variables,” and the respective alarm
magnitudes are determined based on changes in such variables and therefore
the degree of inattentiveness [answer, page 6].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007