Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 29
(Group XIII) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant asserts (brief,
page 23) that the time lapse VCR recording of Smart is not the
same as pre-programming to display live video images. The
examiner's position (answer, page 23) is that Smart discloses
that a selected "camera of interest may be pre-programmed to
record at a time-lapsed mode." We find that Smart discloses
(page 3) that "[v]ideo signals are displayed using a computer-
controlled video-switching system." Smart further discloses
(id.) six monitors for video assessment and surveillance. From
these teachings of Smart, we find that in order to display the
video images from selected cameras, the computer controlled
video-switching system will inherently display in a sequential
fashion the video images from selected ones of the plurality of
video surveillance cameras. Accordingly, the rejection of claim
129, and claim 130 which depends therefrom, is affirmed.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007