Appeal No. 2005-2668
Application No. 09/765,823
condition. The examiner posits that alarm conditions (e.g., movement) being outside a
specified range represents a violation of local policy that causes a report to be sent to
the central monitoring station. The information may include location and user identity,
and is related to the violation of the local policy. If the central monitoring station verifies
that the occupant of the vehicle is authorized, then the central monitoring system sends
command signals to the vehicle to allow operation. The central monitoring station
verification is deemed to be a remote policy. (Answer at 20-21.)
Johnson depicts (Fig. 7) a state transition diagram showing the interactions
between security system 300 (Fig. 3) and the central monitoring station 103 (Fig. 1).
Johnson discloses that from alarm state 709 a call is made to the central monitoring
station to report the event (e.g., an emergency, an intrusion detection zone violation, or
a carjacking). When the central monitoring station 103 answers the call, the security
system 300 sends the current status (e.g., “emergency”) and the vehicle’s location as
determined by a GPS receiver. The central monitoring system attempts to verify that
the occupant is an authorized user of the vehicle. The verification process may be
accomplished by accepting a security code which the occupant of the vehicle enters on
the cellular telephone handset 211b (Fig. 3), by accepting voice input from the cellular
telephone microphone, or by observing an image of the occupant obtained by the
camera 233 (Fig. 2). If the central monitoring station 103 verifies that the occupant of
the vehicle is authorized, the central monitoring station causes the security system to
disarm. Col. 13, l. 14 - col. 14, l. 7. Further, the cellular transceiver 213 (Fig. 3) is
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007