Appeal No. 96-3211
Application 07/928,717
and 15, 16, and 18-20. Claims within these groupings stand or
fall together.
B. Obviousness
4. Applicant argues that the proposed combination does not
teach the movement discriminating means and the mode control
means of claim 1, but only argues the mode control means
limitation with specificity. (Paper 33 at 10-13.)
5. Applicant is correct that Folsom does not teach
switching between the intermittent and continuous recording modes
when motion is detected. We conclude, however, that the
combination of Folsom with Niitsu and Suzuki does teach this
limitation. Suzuki teaches the desirability of detecting
intruders using various sensors including motion detectors.
Niitsu teaches a motion detection system for use in a video
system. Folsom teaches a video surveillance system with an
intermittent mode to avoid wasting videotape while still
recording as much as possible. A person having ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to incorporate Folsom's
videotape-saving mode of operation into an intrusion detection
and recording system like Suzuki's. Niitsu would have shown the
artisan how to do this using the video system itself instead of
additional sensors.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007