Appeal No. 2006-2208
Application No. 10/782,265
closed captioning text, not in a separate list of words or
dictionary.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments.
“In reviewing the Examiner’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). In this case, as discussed by Appellant (brief, pages 5-
8), Brodsky merely adds the word from the closed captioning text
to a dictionary (col. 3, lines 60-64) where they remain for the
user to select and obtain additional information (col. 5, lines
11-20). Therefore, Brodsky creates a separate list of the words
that can be selected outside the closed captioning text. In
fact, in terms of primary and secondary words, since Brodsky
places every searchable word in the dictionary, there remains no
need for modifying the appearance of any remaining part of the
closed captioning text.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the
necessary teachings and suggestions related to the claimed
primary words appearing differently within the text of the closed
captioning text, as recited in independent claim 1 is not shown.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007