Appeal 2007-1598
Application 10/071,731
OPINION
Appellant contends (Br. 14) that the references fail to teach
determining preferred modalities of the user. Appellant contends (Br. 16)
that Mizokawa discloses "recognition of emotion and a programmable
pseudo-emotional response. Emotions are not modalities." Thus, Appellant
concludes that claims 1 through 18 would not have been rendered obvious
by the combination of Breese and Mizokawa. The issue is whether
Mizokawa discloses determining preferred modalities of the user.
Claim 1 requires sensing a psychomotor behavioral element of an
individual's activity and determining the preferred modalities of the
individual based on the sensed psychomotor behavioral element. Modality
is defined by Appellant (Specification 5) as "a mode of behavior or
operation." Thus, claim 1 requires sensing a psychomotor behavioral
element from a user's activity and using the sensed information to determine
the user's preferred mode of behavior.
Mizokawa discloses (col. 1, ll. 9-11) "adapting, to a user, behavior of
an object capable of behaving in an autonomous manner, thereby creating
behavior highly responsive to the user or environment." The object to be
controlled can be any type of device including a touring assist system in an
automobile. (See Mizokawa, col. 2, ll. 45-57.) Mizokawa discloses (col. 2,
ll. 53-60) that the device perceives its surroundings and responds.
Mizokawa discloses (col. 6, ll. 46-54) a user's emotion is determined based
on facial expression analysis and auditory analysis of the user. Further, the
relationship between emotions, state of the user, and environmental
information is determined, such as: the lower the temperature, the higher the
level of user disgust; and the darker the environment, the higher level of user
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013