Appeal No. 2006-2480
Application No. 10/384,862
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 10.
Bevan’s driver alertness monitoring system activates a first stage alert if the
subject’s detected activity level falls below a predetermined threshold for a
predetermined time period [Bevan, col. 7, lines 51-57]. If the subject does not
respond to the first stage alert for a predetermined time period as indicated by no
change in detected activity, the system then assumes that the subject remains
inattentive. Accordingly, a second, more pronounced alert is activated [Bevan,
col. 7, line 64 – col. 8, line 4; col. 13, line 57 – col. 14, line 10; Fig. 8].
We find that Bevan’s system fully meets independent claims 1 and 10.
Bevan activates the first and second stage alerts responsive to detection of
inactivity for predetermined time periods. That is, both alerts are activated
responsive to the duration of inattentiveness. But the duration of inattentiveness
corresponds to the degree of inattentiveness. Simply put, drivers that are
inattentive longer (e.g., inattentive drivers that do not respond to the first stage
alert) are more inattentive than drivers that respond more promptly (e.g.,
inattentive drivers that respond to the first stage alert).
Thus, the claimed “variable that represents a degree of a driver’s
inattentiveness” is fully met by the duration of inattentiveness determined in
Bevan. Moreover, the magnitude of the warning signal (i.e., activating the first
and second stage alerts) depends on this inattentiveness duration variable.
Therefore, Bevan fully meets the limitations of independent claims 1 and 10.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007