Appeal 2007-0638
Application 09/933,655
surveillance of a particular location, even though the monitor may already be
monitoring a different location at the time of the request.
Appellants also argue that “since the secure image monitoring system
of Hsieh teaches remotely monitoring a predetermined local site, there
cannot be any need for identifying the area that is to be under surveillance.
In other words, Hsieh fails to identify the area that is to be under
surveillance.” (Br. 15 (emphasis omitted)).
We are not persuaded by this argument. At column 5, lines 7-8, Hsieh
refers to “remotely monitoring a predetermined local site.” Although this
local site is predetermined, choosing this site still constitutes identifying an
area that is to be under surveillance. Furthermore, by rotating a camera, a
particular site within the larger area is identified. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Hsieh describes “identifying the area that is to be under
surveillance,” as recited in claim 1.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claim 1 is anticipated by Hsieh, which Appellants have not rebutted. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claim 21
falls with claim 1.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s position is supported by the preponderance of the
evidence of record. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 18, and
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the rejection of claims 3-9, 11-17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013