Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
a labeled pixel in a second labeled track in memory, that
second labeled track corresponding to the temporal track of
the set of related temporal tracks which contain the image.
Thus, as explained by appellants at page 13 of the principal
brief, multiple hit test tracks may correspond to a single
video track and a single video track is coordinated with two
separate user actions. The examiner explains [answer-pages 5-
6] that the language of claim 41 is so broad as to permit the
image of a temporal track containing a labeled pixel to refer
to a larger image context including a second area within the
image having a second labeled track. We, frankly, do not
understand the examiner’s reasoning in this regard and will
not sustain the rejection of claim 41. The examiner has
simply not shown where, in the applied references, it is
taught or suggested to identify a second area within the image
which could be selected by the user, label each pixel within
the second area with a second identifier unique to the second
area and then store each labeled pixel in the second labeled
track in the memory wherein the second labeled track
corresponds to the temporal track of the set of related
temporal tracks which contains the image.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007