Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
Fernandez indicates that controller 6 and the target units 4 are
two distinct devices that are wirelessly connected.
(Id. at 12 (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. We recognize that the
controller 6 and the target units 4 of Fernandez are distinct devices, but we
do not agree that the controller 6 cannot be considered a mobile terminal.
Fernandez states that the controller may be implemented in a portable (i.e.,
mobile) computer (Fernandez, col. 8, ll. 19-21). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Fernandez describes a controller that constitutes a mobile
terminal.
In addition, contrary to Appellants’ argument, claims 1 and 2 do not
recite that the mobile terminal “receives a request for surveillance to control
the surveillance of an area with that mobile terminal” (Br. 12 (emphasis
omitted)). Instead, claim 1 recites that a request for surveillance is received
from the mobile terminal. Claim 2 also recites that the area that is to be
under surveillance is identified using information from the mobile terminal.
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Fernandez
describes these features.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Fernandez, which Appellants have not
rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013