Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 1 is anticipated by Sato, which Appellants have not rebutted. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claim 18
falls with claim 1.
6. OBVIOUSNESS OVER SATO
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Sato
in view of Nunally. The Examiner relies on Sato for teaching the features of
claim 18, on which claim 19 depends (Answer 4). The Examiner relies on
Nunally for disclosing “activating a menu and selecting a surveillance option
from the menu” (id. at 8). The Examiner argues that it would have been
obvious “to take the apparatus disclosed by Sato and add the menu options
taught by Nunally in order to obtain an apparatus that operates more
efficiently by providing a security device that operates with greater
flexibility by being able to customize different options for different
cameras” (id.). We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie
case that claim 19 would have been obvious.
Appellants argue that “Sato describes that the requests are not for
surveillance from the cellular phone set 1” (Br. 19). In addition, Appellants
argue that “Nunally fails to provide any suggestion or motivation to modify
Sato or to combine reference teachings to arrive at the Applicants’ claimed
invention” (id.).
As indicated above, we affirm the rejection of claim 18 as anticipated
by Sato, and we agree with the Examiner that a message requesting a camera
to monitor a particular location constitutes a “request for surveillance.”
Appellants provide no reasoned basis to rebut the Examiner’s position that it
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013