Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 23
the incident can be automatically switched on. From the
statements in Smart that any video associated with the incident
can be automatically switched and can be automatically turned and
focused on the appropriate location, we find that Smart discloses
that the video surveillance camera will pan and tilt to the
incident (target) location selected by the operator.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 111-113 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 114 (Group VIII).
Appellant asserts (brief, page 19) that the claim requires that
when the operator designates a point within a preselected region
of the topographical image, a preselected video camera will
automatically aim without necessarily displaying the live video
image from that camera. Appellant argues that Smart does not
show or suggest the designation of a point within a preselected
region on the graphical image to automatically cause a camera to
aim at that point.
We affirm the rejection of claim 114 for reasons similar to
our affirmance of the rejection of claim 111, supra. We agree
with the examiner (answer, page 19) that "it is considered
obvious that each of the cameras shown in Figure 4 of Smart has a
preselected region of interest to be surveilled," and that it is
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007