Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
surveillance is received from the mobile terminal,” while, in Fernandez, it is
the controller user that requests monitoring of a remote object (id. at 11).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. We agree with Appellants
that the target unit 4 of Fernandez can be considered a “mobile terminal” as
recited in claim 1. However, Fernandez’s controller 6 can also be
considered a “mobile terminal,” as discussed above. After receiving
information from a target unit 4, the controller sends a request to a particular
detector to monitor a particular location; i.e., a “request for surveillance.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Fernandez describes a method
comprising “receiving a request for surveillance from the mobile terminal.”
This request is received by the network and ultimately by a detector, which
carries out the request.
Appellants also argue that “the only information associated with
orienting equipment is conveyed to the target unit 4” (Br. 9). We disagree.
Fernandez also describes “adjusting detector operation, such as focus, tilt,
[and] pan” (Fernandez, col. 4, ll. 57-61). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Fernandez describes “orienting equipment to effect surveillance of the
identified area.”
In addition, Appellants argue that “Fernandez does not teach that
controller 6 identifies the area that is to be under surveillance. The
controller 6 only monitors positional data associated with a mobile position
of a given object. . . . The target unit 4 provides object data that the
controller 6 uses” (Br. 10 (emphasis omitted)). “Since the user of the
controller 6 provides input to specify or request surveillance of one or more
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013