Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550
possible intruders that may appear on a random basis (Br. 13). Appellant
adds that various claimed elements are not found in either McDougall or
Vaios (Br. 14-18; Reply Br. 6).
Appellant further argues that it would not have been obvious to
combine McDougall with Vaios as the Examiner contends. According to
Appellant, there is no reason or teaching to use Vaios’ video camera having
a motion sensor as part of the McDougall’s video conference system (Br. 16-
17). Appellant further contends that Vaios’ video phone system is not the
same as McDougall’s video conference system (Reply Br. 3-5).
The Examiner notes that combining Vaios with McDougall would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan since Vaios not only discloses a
security surveillance system, but the reference teaches that such a
surveillance system can be configured in other ways including, among other
things, facilitating videophone calls. Thus, the Examiner argues, Vaios
suggests using the security system for videoconferencing purposes (Answer
10).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1.
McDougall discloses a video conferencing system that allows a particular
participant (hereafter “control participant”) to remotely establish and direct a
video conference for a number of participants3 through a control system 5
that resides on the control participant’s computer 121. The control system is
3 See terminals 121-12n in Fig. 1. Each participant’s terminal includes (1) a
video conferencing application and (2) video and audio generating means
(e.g., a camera and microphone) (McDougall, col. 5, l. 67 - col. 6, l. 5).
Moreover, as shown Figure 1, one participant’s computer, 121, comprises the
control system 5 that is connected to remote video conferencing switch 14
via the control network 20 (McDougall, col. 6, ll. 16-20; Fig. 1).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013