Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
observation by selecting detectors to track mobile objects according to the
location indicated by the target unit associated with the object (id. at col. 18,
ll. 23-30).
As noted by the Examiner, Fernandez states that the controller may be
implemented in a portable computer (id. at col. 8, ll. 19-21). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that the controller constitutes a mobile terminal.
Although the controller can receive a request for “current or future
monitoring or surveillance” (id. at col. 6, ll. 59-63), we agree with the
Examiner that the controller also sends “a request for surveillance” to the
network, which selects detectors to track mobile objects depending on the
objects’ location (id. at col. 3, ll. 43-48 and col. 18, ll. 23-30). By selecting
detectors, the controller identifies an area that is to be under surveillance. In
addition, since the controller coordinates the detector selection (id. at col. 18,
ll. 23-30), this area is identified using information from the controller, that
is, the mobile terminal, as recited in claim 2. Furthermore, Fernandez
describes “adjusting detector operation, such as focus, tilt, [and] pan” (id. at
col. 4, ll. 57-59). Thus, Fernandez also describes “orienting equipment to
effect surveillance of the identified area.”
Appellants argue that the controller 6 is not the mobile terminal of
claim 1 (Br. 7). In particular, Appellants argue that “[c]laim 1 expressly
recites that a request is received for surveillance from the mobile terminal,
thus indicating that the controller 6 of Fernandez and the mobile terminal are
two different entities. . . . It is the target unit 4 that provides object data that
the controller 6 uses” (id. (emphasis omitted)). “[I]n claim 1, a request for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013