Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
Appellants argue that the cellular phone set described in Sato
“generates camera control requests to a connection destination,” but that
“these requests are not for surveillance” (Br. 13 (emphasis omitted)). Thus,
Appellants argue that
there is no teaching in Sato as to receiving a request of
surveillance from the cellular phone set 1. Instead of
controlling the surveillance of an area with the cellular phone
set 1, Sato teaches controlling a destination camera. . . . In
other words, the data controls the destination camera instead of
controlling the surveillance of an area with the cellular phone
set 1.
(Br. 13-14 (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded by this argument. As discussed above, we
agree with the Examiner that a message requesting a camera to monitor a
particular location constitutes a “request for surveillance.” Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that Sato describes receiving a request for surveillance
from a mobile terminal.
Appellants also argue that,
rather than orienting equipment to effect surveillance of the
identified area, Sato teaches that in response to the control
information in received data, the operation of the camera itself
is controlled. That is, the operation of the camera which
generates the camera control request is controlled instead of
orienting equipment. In other words, there is no teaching of
orienting the destination camera.
(Br. 14 (emphasis omitted).)
As discussed above, Sato states that the “operation of the camera
includes setting of a direction” (Sato, col. 3, ll. 9-14). Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that Sato describes orienting equipment.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013