Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550
computer located at the respective end user locations 8 can comprise the
same hardware and software as the computer system in the security
surveillance area such that the remote computer systems can likewise be
employed as a surveillance area (Vaios, col. 4, ll. 15-29).
With this general teaching, we see no reason why at least one of the
participant terminals with cameras in McDougall could not be so designated
a “security surveillance area” or, at the very least, McDougall’s system
otherwise used for surveillance monitoring of particular participants or their
surroundings.
Furthermore, Vaios expressly states that the video surveillance system
can be implemented according to H.323 and other videoconferencing
standards (Vaios, col. 9, ll. 45-48) (emphasis added). Certainly, by
employing such standards, the skilled artisan would readily infer that Vaios’
video system would at least be capable of videoconferencing purposes. For
this reason alone, the teachings of Vaios are readily applicable to the video
conferencing system of McDougall.
But Vaios does not stop there. Vaios teaches that the system can be
used for various purposes including, among other things, monitoring a
conference room or a computer terminal (Vaios, col. 9, ll. 49-53) (emphasis
added). Certainly, McDougall’s system is readily capable of such
monitoring purposes. The cameras located at various participant terminals
in McDougall could readily monitor a conference room or computer
terminal if so employed.
With this in mind, even if we assume for the sake of argument that
McDougall somehow does not disclose “surveillance” monitoring of these
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013