Appeal No. 2001-1815
Application 08/924,865
flowcharts found in figures 4 and 5. Furthermore, Appellant
argues that the reason for using the “predetermined stop” of the
present invention is to avoid checking whether every new
monitoring point is in the prohibition area. See page 5 of
Appellant’s brief.
Turning to Oyashiki, we find that Oyashiki teaches that the
stops are calculated every time a new monitoring point is
determined. In particular, in column 6, lines 22 through 39, and
figures 9 and 10, Oyashiki clearly discloses that it is
determined whether or not the new monitoring point is in a
prohibited area. In particular, Oyashiki teaches in column 6,
lines 28 through 33, that if it is determined that the
coordinates are in the monitoring prohibition area, the
subsequent operation is stopped, and an alarm is generated or
likewise attention is invoked. Alternately, the revolution angle
is corrected as described in step S8. Therefore, Oyashiki does
not teach that the “camera’s line sight being limited at a
predetermined stop” as recited in Appellant’s claims 1 through 6
nor does Oyashiki teach “limiting the position of said camera to
said predetermined stop limit” as recited in Appellant’s claim 7.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007