Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
3. ANTICIPATION BY FERNANDEZ
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Fernandez. The Examiner argues that the controller of Fernandez
constitutes the mobile terminal of claim 1 (Answer 3). In particular, the
Examiner argues that Fernandez “discloses in column 8, lines 20-22, that the
controller is implemented in a portable computer, thus indicating the
controller is mobile,” and that “a request is received from the mobile
terminal, or controller, for initiating a surveillance sequence” (id. at 9).
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Fernandez. Fernandez describes a system
for monitoring movable objects (Fernandez, col. 1, ll. 33-36) at, e.g., a
carrier transit site (id. at col. 4, ll. 3-10).
The system includes four basic elements: a target unit associated with
a mobile object (id. at col. 5, ll. 36-38), detectors for detecting the target unit
(id. at col. 5, ll. 46-52), a controller, and a network. The controller is
preferably coupled to the network (id. at col. 2, ll. 22-27). Using the
controller, a user may request surveillance of a location or object (id. at col.
6, ll. 59-63).
The network also couples to the detectors and to a communicator for
communicating to target units (id. at col. 3, ll. 16-22). The detectors may be
digital imagers or video capture devices (col. 4, ll. 22-25). The detectors
“may be coupled to a control mechanism for adjusting detector operation,
such as focus, tilt, [and] pan” (id. at col. 4, ll. 57-59).
The controller can determine the position of a target unit through the
network (id. at col. 7, ll. 32-35). The controller coordinates remote
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013