Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 14
displayed by selecting the icon on the graphics display, and that
when an alarm occurs, a camera can be automatically turned and
focused on the appropriate location. However, the panning and
zooming on the map is not the same as the panning, tilting, and
zooming of the camera. Figure 3 of Smart, which illustrates a
block diagram of a workstation, appears to show that the pan,
tilt, and zoom (PTZ) is part of the surveillance and assessment
portion of the workstation, which is on the right side of the
console, and is not part of the center screen. We therefore find
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 99 and claim 100 which depends therefrom.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 99 and 100 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
We turn next to claims 102-104 (Group III). We begin with
independent claim 102. Appellant asserts (brief, page 14) that
there is no suggestion in Smart to display on the monitor both a
sub-image palette showing a graphical image of an entire area on
a small scale, and adjacent thereto an enlarged graphical image
with the first and second icons of a selected portion of the
entire area. We agree. We are unpersuaded by the examiner's
assertion (answer, page 9) that although these limitations are
not particularly disclosed by Smart, that "it is nevertheless
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007