Appeal 2007-2480
Application 10/352,385
1 such purposes, although other recording systems also have been proposed
2 and/or implemented.
3
4 Lemelson is relied upon by the Examiner (Ans. 6) for a disclosure of
5 monitoring erratic driving patterns such as swerving, uneven or unnatural
6 acceleration or deceleration, combinations of unusual or unnatural driving patterns,
7 driving much slower or faster than surrounding vehicles, excessive acceleration, or
8 unnatural vehicle control sequences such as alternate braking and acceleration or
9 braking in a flowing traffic stream [Lemelson, ¶ 0174]. Lemelson teaches that
10 “[t]his type of monitoring is especially helpful in determining driver fatigue or
11 detecting erratic driving patterns caused for example, from driving while
12 intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.” See id.
13 The Appellants argue that unlike Kithil, Kirmuss does not display occupant
14 data but, rather, displays playback video of the environment outside the vehicle
15 (Br. 7). Kirmuss’s disclosure of using a VCR to record events that occur on public
16 transportation (Kirmuss, ¶ 0023) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art,
17 through the use of no more than ordinary creativity, to record the events that occur
18 within other vehicles and are desirably recorded such as occupant head nodding
19 which indicates driver sleepiness, or head acceleration which is relevant to
20 neurological diagnosis, as disclosed by Kithil (Kithil, col. 15, ll. 41-65).
21 Therefore, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejections under
22 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 42 and 53 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss or claim 54
23 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss and Lemelson.
24 Rejection of claims 32-39, 48 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
25 over Kithil in view of Kirmuss and Sakoh
26
27 Claims 35-39, 48 and 49
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013