Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
surveillance is the location of the subscriber’s mobile terminal or a remote
area identified by the subscriber” (Spec. 2), but claim 1 is not limited to this
embodiment. “While a court may look to the specification and prosecution
history to interpret what a patentee meant by a word or phrase in a claim,
extraneous limitations cannot be read into the claims from the specification
or prosecution history.” Bayer AG v. Biovail Corp., 279 F.3d 1340, 1348,
61 USPQ2d 1675, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In fact, claim 1 does not require the request for surveillance to be
received from a mobile terminal before an area that is to be under
surveillance is identified and the equipment is oriented to effect surveillance
of the area. “Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps
are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v.
Compuserve Inc., 231 F.3d 859, 875, 56 USPQ2d 1647, 1661 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
Claims 2, 5, and 11 depend (directly or indirectly) from claim 1 and
add further limitations to the claimed method. Claim 19 is directed to a
wireless telecommunication system including a mobile terminal and video
surveillance equipment. A request for surveillance from the mobile terminal
is effected by activating a menu and selecting a surveillance option from it.
2. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Nunally US 5,917,958 Jun. 29, 1999
Kawai US 6,137,485 Oct. 24, 2000
Ozaki US 6,342,915 B1 Jan. 29, 2002
Hsieh US 6,400,264 B1 Jun. 4, 2002
Fernandez US 6,697,103 B1 Feb. 24, 2004
Sato US 6,704,040 B2 Mar. 9, 2004
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013