Appeal No. 2006-2208
Application No. 10/782,265
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thomsen, IBM-TDB and O’Brien.
We make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner.
OPINION
The main point of contention is based on whether the words
within the closed captioning text of Brodsky appear differently
from any other words therein. Appellant asserts that while
Brodsky adds words to a dynamically evolving dictionary, the
added words appear the same as other words and are selected
automatically without being selected by the user from the closed
captioning text itself (brief, page 6). Appellant further argues
that if every word appears differently from the others in a
closed captioning text because they are spelled differently, as
argued by the Examiner, every word will become a “primary word”
(brief, page 7; reply brief, page 2).
The Examiner responds by stating that the words added to the
dictionary are derived from the closed captioning text and the
user can request additional content pertaining to the topic
recently seen or heard (answer, page 16). The Examiner further
argues that Appellant’s specification does not clearly define how
a “primary word” is different from a “secondary word” and merely
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007