Appeal 2007-1598
Application 10/071,731
calm and content and would lower the temperature and change the
brightness in the car. Thus, the device would change the temperature and
brightness to conform to the preferred modalities of the user, i.e., driving in
a calm manner. In other words, Mizokawa at least suggests determining
preferred modalities of the user, and we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 11, 12, and 18, which are argued together, over Breese
and Mizokawa.
As to claims 2 and 3, Appellant contends (Br. 21) that the sensors in
Mizokawa do not modify the environment of the user. However, as
indicated supra, Mizokawa discloses (col. 2, ll. 46-62, col. 9, ll. 25-28, and
col. 22, ll. 8-23) that the device can be a touring system in a car and can
sense negative changes in the user based on environmental conditions such
as temperature and brightness. It would have been obvious based on the
purpose of the device for the device to change the environment (i.e., change
the temperature and brightness) to the preferred modality of the user.
Consequently, we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 10, Appellant contends (Br. 21) that it is unclear
what the multiple dimensions of the environment are in the rejection. The
modifiable units are clearly temperature and brightness, thereby making the
environment multi-dimensional. Claim 13 likewise recites modifying an
environmental unit to conform the environment to the preferred modality of
the user, and, thus, has been addressed supra. Similarly, we have explained
supra that Mizokawa suggests calculating a preferred modality (level of
brightness and temperature) while sensing the user's psychomotor behavioral
activity (e.g., facial expressions, along with body movement and gestures, as
suggested by Breese) and using the information to modify the environment,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013