Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 24
considered obvious that an operator can "designate a point within
any of the preselected regions so as to surveil a region of
interest." We find that when a incident occurs and the map
display pans and zooms to the area of the overall map containing
the incident of highest priority, the map displays a preselected
region of interest as the map displays the area having an
incident of highest priority, as shown in figure 5 of Smart. As
we stated supra, with respect to claim 111, upon selection of the
active incident with the highest priority, the video surveillance
camera will turn and focus on the designated point of the
incident to display video associated with the incident.
As to the claim language regarding the video image not
being necessarily displayed, we find that Smart's disclosure
(page 3) that "an operator may display any of the camera images
on any of the monitors" would have suggested to an artisan that a
monitor can be turned off and images from a camera may not
necessarily be displayed. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
114 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 115 (Group IX) under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant asserts (brief, pages 19 and 20, and
reply brief, page 6) that the claim requires that the live video
image and the graphical image be simultaneously displayed on the
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007