Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
locations, in Fernandez, there is no need to identify the area that is to be
placed under surveillance” (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted)).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, as discussed above,
claim 1 does not require the mobile unit to identify the area that is to be
under surveillance. Thus, this argument does not apply to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites that the area that is to be under surveillance is
identified using information from the mobile terminal. Fernandez states that
a “controller user may provide input to specify or request current or future
monitoring or surveillance of one or more certain location . . . or object”
(Fernandez, col. 6, ll. 59-63) and that the controller coordinates remote
observation by selecting detectors to track a mobile object according to the
object’s location delivered by a target unit to the controller (id. at col. 18,
ll. 23-30). Therefore, regardless of who or what ultimately identifies the
area that is to be under surveillance, this information is received by the
network from the controller. Thus, the area that is to be under surveillance
is identified (by the network) using information from the controller/mobile
terminal. Similarly, in the method described in Appellants’ Specification, a
person identifies an area that is to be under surveillance through the mobile
terminal (Spec. 2).
Appellants also argue that “the Examiner confuses the ‘portable’
nature of the controller 6 with the ‘mobile terminal’ of . . . claim 1” (Br. 11).
In particular, Appellants argue that:
The phrase “portable computer,” as it is used in Fernandez,
does not state that “the controller 6” comprises a “mobile
terminal,” that receives a request for surveillance to control the
surveillance of an area with that mobile terminal. Rather,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013