Appeal 2007-2480
Application 10/352,385
1 The Appellants argue that “the video data in Sakoh already indicates the
2 number and positions of occupants in the vehicle, so there is no motivation to add
3 sensors, such as shown in Kithil, that do the same thing” (Br. 6). Kithil’s sensors
4 provide a record of occupant head acceleration that is useful for neurological
5 analysis (Kithil, col. 5, ll. 62-63; col. 15, ll. 57-62). Moreover, because a driver’s
6 state includes a number of driver characteristics, Sakoh’s disclosure that the
7 driver’s state is detected by a unit other than the filming (Sakoh, col. 27, ll. 4-5)
8 would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary
9 creativity, to use a plurality of occupant sensors to capture those driver
10 characteristics. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741, 82
11 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (In making an obviousness determination one “can
12 take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
13 the art would employ”).
14 Hence, we are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of claims 32-
15 34, 43-47 and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sakoh in view of Kithil.
16 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 42 and 53
17 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss and claim 54
18 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss and Lemelson
19
20 Kirmuss discloses “systems and techniques for identifying motor vehicles in
21 a mobile environment, such as in a police patrol car, and is particularly related to
22 techniques and systems that process video data in order to match license plate
23 numbers against an in-car database” (Kirmuss, ¶ 0003). Kirmuss also discloses
24 (Kirmuss, ¶ 0023):
25 In addition, recently there has been increased interest in monitoring events
26 that occur on various forms of public transportation, such as airplanes, buses
27 and trains. Typically, a standard videocassette recorder (VCR) is used for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013