Appeal No. 2003-1934 Page 4
Application No. 08/821,320
rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Klingler; Gibbon; and U.S. Patent No.
5,613,909 ("Stelovsky").2
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the point of contention therebetween. The examiner finds, "Gibbons teaches
the editing of a script text, which goes along with an audio and video portion, so that a
certain text portion is not split between two unrelated scenes, and matches a video
scene it is related to." (Examiner's Answer at 9.) The appellants argue, "[m]erely
moving the text around on the screen to be displayed when spoken, as is performed in
the references relied upon by the Examiner, is not enough. Rather, it is the editing of the
script that changes the audio portion ('an edited script for defining an audio portion') that
is to accompany the video portion." (Reply Br. at 3.)
2Although the examiner's list of prior art, (Examiner's Answer at 3), and statement
of the rejection, (id. at 6), mention Stelovsky, the explanation of the rejection refers to
"Parks." (Id. at 8.) Neither the identity nor the content of the tertiary reference being at
issue, however, we leave the inconsistency to the examiner and appellants to resolve.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007