Appeal No. 2002-1940
Application 08/932,649
At the outset, we observe that the means for managing clause
of representative claim 1 on appeal relates only to at least one
of a plurality of types of information selected from a Markush
Group of three items, the video device control information used
for controlling the video devices, object characteristic quantity
information relating to the characteristic quantities of the
object itself and the topographic information of the area to be
monitored. Thus, as to this aspect of claim 1 on appeal, the
examiner's duty is to find teachings or suggestions in the
applied prior art only to at least one of these three
alternatives. Having said this, there appears to us to be no
dispute between the appellants and the examiner as to these three
features, namely, that there appears to be agreement that Aviv
teaches effectively managing video device control information
used for controlling the video devices and object characteristic
quantity information relating to the characteristic quantities of
the objects in Aviv. Correspondingly, there is an agreement
between appellants and the examiner that this reference does not
teach topographic information of the area to be monitored. Our
study of this reference concludes the same. Note the discussion
of Aviv in the principal brief on appeal at pages 3 and 4.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007