Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
the “specific content characteristic”; that Dimitrova teaches locating a commercial within
a video data stream, that one factor in the method is whether a black frame has
occurred based on certain criteria, that this is not a detection of an error or a defect, and
that while combining Dimitrova and Hasegawa may produce the ability to skip
commercials when the video is interrupted, it does not indicate any error or defect in
video content.
Again, appellant points to no specific claim language, other than “specific content
characteristic,” on which he relies for patentability. The “specific content characteristic”
language has been dealt with supra, with regard to Hasegawa. Since it is unclear as to
on what other claim limitations appellant bases his argument for patentability, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 11/7, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103
over Van De Schaar-Mitrea and Hasegawa, appellant again argues that Van De
Schaar-Mitrea’s different compressions, dependent on whether the signals are graphic
or video, is not a detection of errors or defects in the video content.
Since the examiner has already shown how Hasegawa broadly discloses the
claimed detection of errors in video content, appellant’s argument that another
reference does not show this is unpersuasive of patentability.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007