Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
4. OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON FERNANDEZ
Claims 3-9, 12-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Fernandez in view of Kawai.1 The Examiner relies on
Fernandez for teaching the features of claims 1 and 2, on which claim 5
depends (Answer 3).2 With regard to claim 5, the Examiner argues that “it
would have been obvious to use the location of the terminal to orient a
camera to focus in on the terminal (Official Notice). Doing so would have
been obvious in order to obtain a surveillance system that is more diverse by
being able to view not only the surroundings but also the controller/terminal
itself” (Answer 6).
Appellants argue that Fernandez “fails to teach or suggest control of
surveillance of an area with a mobile terminal, as claimed in independent
claim 1,” and that Kawai also fails to teach or suggest this feature (Br. 17).
In addition, Appellants argue that Fernandez and Kawai “fail to provide any
suggestion or motivation to modify a reference or to combine reference
teachings to arrive at the Applicants’ claimed invention” (id.).
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Fernandez
anticipates claims 1 and 2. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
argument that “it would have been obvious to use the location of the
terminal to orient a camera to focus in on the terminal” (Answer 6). We
conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that claim 5
1 This rejection purports to include claim 10, but claim 10 was cancelled and
is therefore not on appeal.
2 The Examiner relies on Kawai for teaching features of claim 3 (Answer 5).
As previously discussed, however, the rejected claims stand or fall together.
We will consider claim 5 to be representative of the rejected claims.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013