Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
would have been obvious over Fernandez in view of Kawai, which
Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 12-17, and 20 fall with claim 5.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Fernandez in view of Kawai and Ozaki. The Examiner relies on Fernandez
for teaching or suggesting the features of claims 1, 2, and 5 on which claim
11 depends (Answer 3). The Examiner relies on Ozaki for teaching “that it
is well known in the art to provide a wireless audio link for communication
between two terminals” (id. at 7). The Examiner argues that it would have
been obvious “to take the apparatus disclosed by Fernandez . . . and add the
audio link taught by Ozaki since it is well known in the art to do so” (id. at
7-8).
Appellants argue that Ozaki “fails to teach or suggest controlling the
surveillance of an area with a mobile terminal based on the request for
surveillance from the mobile terminal” and that “the cited references fail to
provide any suggestion or motivation to modify a reference or to combine
reference teachings to arrive at the Applicants’ claimed invention” (Br. 18).
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Fernandez
renders claim 5 obvious. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
argument that it would have been obvious to modify Fernandez’s apparatus
by adding Ozaki’s audio link. We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a
prima facie case that claim 11 would have been obvious over Fernandez in
view of Kawai and Ozaki, which Appellants have not rebutted. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013