Appeal No. 2006-1591
Application No. 09/866,394
at page 16, lines 21-22, “The term ‘meaningful image’ may refer
to a frame with a person’s face, an important text, etc.”), it does
not require that the most meaningful frame has to be a frame with
a person’s face or an important text. Wang teaches selecting
representative scenes for presentation to a user that have the “most
significant content”, as recited in column 5, lines 11-20. Wang
further recites that a representative frame “can be taken as one of
the frames of the longest scene in a set, the longest scene being
most indicative of the content of the related scenes”, in column 3,
lines 59-62. Therefore, the examiner respectfully argues that since
the longest scene is most indicative of the content of the related
scenes, the longest scene is the most meaningful of the group.
We agree with the examiner’s conclusions that Wang describes representative images
that are “closest to the cluster center,” and a representative image that is “the most meaningful
image.” It appears that appellants also agree with the examiner’s findings (reply brief, page 2,
paragraphs 4 through 6).
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 11, 21 and 30 is sustained. The
obviousness rejection of claims 2 through 5, 7 through 10, 12 through 15, 17 through 20, 22
through 24, 26 through 29, 31 through 33 and 35 through 38 is likewise sustained because
appellants have not presented any patentability arguments for these claims apart from the
patentability arguments presented for claims 1, 11, 21 and 30.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17 through 24,
26 through 33 and 35 through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007