Appeal 2007-1598
Application 10/071,731
as recited in claims 16 and 17. Therefore, we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 10, 13, 16 and 17.
Appellant contends (Br. 23-24) that it is unclear how Mizokawa can
store sensed information, as recited in claims 4, 14, and 15 without also
sensing the information. However, Mizokawa does sense information and
also must store the information, as it learns from its experiences and
improves its performance accordingly. (See Mizokawa, col. 3, ll. 52-60.)
Therefore, we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 4, 14, and 15.
Appellant contends (Br. 24-25) that neither reference discloses or
suggests using linear algebraic transforms, as recited in claim 5. We agree.
Therefore, we will reverse the rejection of claim 5.
As to claims 6 through 8, Appellant contends (Br. 28-29) that nothing
in the references teaches or suggests ordering the modalities by preference
thereby defining a focus of the individual's attention. Mizokawa does
disclose (col. 20, ll. 33-34) that composite behavior is created by prioritizing
plural behaviors. Thus, the two conditions of claim 6, a combination and
prioritizing, are met. Further, as broadly interpreted, the brightness and the
temperature define the "focus of the individual's attention," since the user's
attention will be more on driving rather than on being upset. Thus, we will
sustain the rejection of claim 6. However, we find nothing in Mizokawa
about "a co-ordinate group of representational geometry to which attention
of the individual is drawn" nor "a cognitive behavioral model," as recited in
claims 7 and 8, respectively. Accordingly, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 7 and 8.
Appellant contends (Br. 33) that neither reference discloses or
suggests use of the particular equation recited in claim 9 for calculating the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013