Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d
at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regarding representative claim 1,2 the Examiner's rejection
essentially finds that McDougall teaches a method including, among other
things, connecting a computer to a video camera and a digital network and
providing the recited software loops. The Examiner notes that McDougall
discloses every claimed feature except for using McDougall’s system for
surveillance purposes. The Examiner cites Vaios as teaching such a video
surveillance system and concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify McDougall’s
system for use as a surveillance system (Answer 3-5).
Appellant argues that McDougall pertains to video conferencing
which allows for at least two locations to interact via two-way audio and
video transmissions simultaneously. According to Appellant, unlike
McDougall, the claimed video surveillance system monitors areas for
2 Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 together as a group.
See Br. 12-18. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013