Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
would have been obvious to add Nunally’s menu options to Sato’s
apparatus. Nor do Appellants argue that the cited references do not teach or
suggest any other limitation of claims 18 or 19. We conclude that the
Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that claim 19 would have been
obvious over Sato in view of Nunally, which Appellants have not rebutted.
We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7. ANTICIPATION BY HSIEH
Claims 1 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Hsieh. The Examiner relies on Hsieh for disclosing “an
apparatus that relates to a community-monitoring device,” in which “the
mobile terminal is the portable image monitor, the request is the camera
rotation switch which requests the camera to be rotated,” and “the
orientation is the camera rotation” (Answer 4).
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
Hsieh anticipates claim 1. Hsieh describes an “image monitoring device
having the functions of memory, positioning, [and] automatically tracking”
(Hsieh, col. 1, ll. 5-8). The device includes “a portable image monitor for
controlling an indoor camera,” the camera being in communication with the
image monitor through a safety patrol box (id. at col. 1, ll. 10-13 and Fig. 1).
The image monitor includes “an image display, an authorized code output
and a camera rotation switch, such as a button or a joystick or a control box”
(id. at col. 2, ll. 7-9), and operates by generating “system control signals
including an authorization signal and a camera control signal” (id. at
Abstract).
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013