Appeal No. 2006-2480
Application No. 10/384,862
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) [decision, pages 7 and 8].
We find no error in this interpretation.
Appellant also argues that the duration of inattentiveness is not a variable
that is derived from at least one operating variable that in turn influences the
magnitude of the warning signal [request, pages 3 and 4]. We disagree. In our
view, the duration of inattentiveness is a “variable” in the sense that its
magnitude varies with respect to time. Furthermore, the inattentiveness duration
variable is derived from multiple operating “variables,” including (1) elapsed time,
and (2) other detected parameters that determine driver inattentiveness (e.g.,
eye blinking, driver movement, etc.). And as we noted previously, the
inattentiveness duration variable represents a degree of driver inattentiveness.
In short, given the scope and breadth of the claim language and the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term “variable,” we find no error in our conclusion
that Bevan fully meets the independent claims. Although we sustained the
examiner’s obviousness rejection based on an anticipatory reference, it is well
settled that obviousness rejections can be based on references that happen to
anticipate the claimed subject matter. In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031, 202
USPQ 175, 179 (CCPA 1979).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007