Appeal No. 2006-2480
Application No. 10/384,862
Appellant first argues that Bevan does not teach or suggest the limitation
calling for “the magnitude of the warning signal varies depending upon the
variable that represents the degree of driver inattentiveness” as claimed.
Appellant emphasizes that the magnitude of the warning signal is varied only if
there is no change in the degree of driver inattentiveness (i.e., the driver’s
alertness does not change after the first stage alert is issued) [request, page 3].
But as we indicated in our decision, the duration of inattentiveness
corresponds to the degree of inattentiveness [decision, page 7]. That is, 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).
Turning to the prior art, Bevan changes the magnitude of the warning
signal (i.e., activates the more pronounced second stage alert) if the driver’s
inattentiveness continues after the first stage alert. Thus, the warning signal’s
magnitude is raised (i.e., from the lower-magnitude first stage alert to the higher-
magnitude second stage alert) for drivers that are inattentive longer than drivers
that respond to the first stage alert [Bevan, col. 7, line 43 – col. 8, line 4].
Appellant argues that our interpretation is flawed since Bevan teaches
raising the magnitude of the alarm when a driver’s alertness has not changed
after the first stage alarm [request, page 3]. But an unchanging or constant
inattentiveness for a longer period of time, in our view, reasonably corresponds
to a higher degree of inattentiveness. As we noted in our decision, drivers that
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007