Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
5. ANTICIPATION BY SATO
Claims 1 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Sato. The Examiner relies on Sato for disclosing “an
apparatus that relates to remote control for a videophone used for
surveillance,” in which “the mobile terminal is the cellular phone” and
“orienting equipment is adjusting the direction, magnification, and
resolution of the camera” (Answer 4).
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
Sato anticipates claim 1. Sato describes “a cellular phone set which can be
used as a remote surveillance monitor” (Sato, col. 1, ll. 55-56). The cellular
phone set comprises “a videophone function of performing real-time image
transfer . . . and means for transmitting control data for controlling various
functions including the videophone function on a distant side” (id. at col. 1,
l. 65 to col. 2, l. 3). “[T]he operation of the camera is controlled in
accordance with control information in received data. The operation of the
camera includes setting of a direction, magnification, resolution, ON/OFF
operation of images, and the like” (id. at col. 3, ll. 9-14).
We agree with the Examiner that, in the system described in Sato, the
videophone receives a request for surveillance from the cellular phone,
which constitutes a mobile terminal. When the cellular phone requests a
change in camera direction, an area that is to be under surveillance has been
identified. In addition, when the camera direction has been changed, the
equipment has been oriented to effect surveillance of the identified area.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Sato anticipates claim 1.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013