Appeal No. 96-2518
Application No. 08/040,053
by each image file [column 2, lines 39-45 of Walter] is
tantamount to the comparison of codes recited by claim 1.
Thus, contrary to appellant’s assertion, we find that
Walter does, indeed, disclose the monitoring of an automation
system by determining a location of a fault (the location of a
fire sensor) in the system and displaying the determined
location of the fault first coarsely and then in at least one
other step in a more detailed manner. We note column 6, lines
15-27 of Walter wherein the option of zooming in on the
location of the actuated sensor
on the display or for looking at details of other sensors
appears to suggest the claimed “coarsely” and “more detailed
manner” limitations.
Appellant also argues [top of page 9 of the brief] that
Walter does not monitor the electronics between the sensors
and the control panel and the control panel itself is not
monitored. We find no such limitations required by the
claims. Thus, appellant’s argument is not commensurate with
the scope of the claims. The fire sensors of Walter certainly
are within Walter’s automation system so appellant’s argument
that Walter does not disclose or suggest any determination or
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007