Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
We agree with the Examiner that, by moving the camera rotation
switch, the portable image monitor of Hsieh sends a request for surveillance
of a particular location, which is received by the safety patrol box. When
the image monitor requests rotation of the camera, an area that is to be under
surveillance has been identified. In addition, by changing the camera
direction, the equipment has been oriented to effect surveillance of the
identified area. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Hsieh anticipates
claim 1.
Appellants argue that a request for surveillance does not correspond to
requesting that a camera be rotated (Br. 14). “As such, a request for
surveillance is not and cannot be received from the portable image monitor”
(id. at 15 (emphasis omitted)). In contrast, Appellants argue that, in Hsieh,
“when the residents go out or an alarm emits, the portable image monitor of
neighbors, community managers, or safe guard members or police will
monitor” (id.).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. As discussed above, we
agree with the Examiner that a message requesting a camera to monitor a
particular location is a “request for surveillance.” Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Hsieh describes receiving a request for surveillance from a
mobile terminal, that is, the portable image monitor. As noted by
Appellants, Hsieh states that “when residents go out or an alarm emits, the
portable image monitor . . . will monitor” (Hsieh, col. 4, ll. 44-48).
However, we agree with the Examiner that the request from the portable
image monitor requesting camera rotation constitutes a request for
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013