Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 7
such as automatically locking or unlocking a door operated by
security personnel for people entering a surveillance
environment/building is well recognized in the art." The
examiner turns to Williams for a teaching of locking and
unlocking a door operated by a security guard. The examiner
asserts (id., page 8) that from the teachings of Smart, Williams,
and the general knowledge of camera surveillance systems, that it
would have been obvious to have the security personnel (operator)
lock or unlock doors in the security system of Smart as taught by
Williams, for the well known reason of operator control in a
surveillance environment.
Appellant points out (brief, page 9) that as set forth in
paragraphs (e) and (f) of claim 98, selection of a first icon on
the graphical image controls the output device from the graphical
image. Appellant asserts (brief, page 10) that the examiner is
in error in combining the "general concept" of locking/unlocking
a door of Williams because Williams is not directed to a
graphical workstation and does not have graphical images of the
protected premises. Appellant further argues that Williams does
not teach the use of icons on graphical images representative of
security devices such as a door, and that Williams uses a video
image to determine whether the operator should unlock a door. If
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007