Appeal No. 1997-1008
Application No. 08/328,394
Finally, with regard to claim 42, this claim requires the
first labeled track to contain a labeled pixel corresponding
to both an image of the first temporal track and an image of a
third temporal track of the set of related temporal tracks,
permitting, as explained by appellants at page 15 of the
principal brief, different temporal tracks of data with
similar objects or areas to share the same hit test track as
for use in scenes which include the same objects such as a
scene in the daytime and the same scene at nighttime. The
examiner again contends that the claim language is so broad,
because of the term “corresponding,” as to permit an
interpretation in which the “labeled track,” applied to one of
Tonomura’s video icons, with selectable regions as per Aisaka
and Preston, “corresponds” to the remainder of the coded
“image” having hit test track regions. We do not understand
how a video icon of Tonomura “corresponds” to “both an image
of said temporal track and an image of a third temporal
track,” as required by claim 42. We find nothing within the
applied references that suggests different temporal tracks of
data with similar objects may share the same test track as in
claim 42.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007