Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
Issue 1. We find the combination of Yao and Fielder teaches
and/or suggests receiving and annotating a plurality of
media objects, generating a new media object, and
embedding a first media object into a second media
object (See Analysis infra).
Issue 3. We find the combination of Anderson and Fielder
teaches and/or suggests selecting one or more portions of
a visual object and an audio object, adding the selected
portions to a bin component, embedding the selected
audio portions into the selected visual portions, and
generating a new media object via the combined portions
(See Analysis infra).
For Issues 2 and 4, we make the following underlying factual
determinations regarding the ultimate issue of obviousness as a matter of
law: 1
Issue 2. We find a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have reasonably been motivated to
1 With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections, we note that the
ultimate issue of obviousness is a matter of law that turns on four underlying
factual determinations: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
level of ordinary skill in the art, (3) the differences between the claimed
invention and the prior art, and (4) objective indicia of nonobviousness. See
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966),
as reaffirmed by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734, 82
USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013