Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
ANALYSIS
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
Issue 1 (elements)
We decide the question of whether the combination of Yao and
Fielder teaches 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.
Appellants argue that Yao does not teach or suggest receiving and
annotating a plurality of media objects, generating a new media object, and
embedding a first media object into a second media object. Appellants
further argue that Fielder fails to remedy the deficiencies of Yao (Br. 6-9).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner finds that Yao teaches a
component that receives a plurality of media objects. The Examiner notes
that Yao’s system segments a video into multiple shots, thus these video
segments (i.e., plurality of media objects) would have been “received”
before subsequent annotation (see Yao, p. 39, § 1.1., ¶ 2) (Answer 19-20).
The Examiner finds that Yao teaches a component that annotates the
plurality of media objects with at least a subset of metadata. The Examiner
notes that Yao’s video segments are annotated with metadata (see Yao, p.
39, § 1, ¶ 6, p. 41, § 3, ¶¶ 1, 2, p. 41, § 3.1, ¶ 5, p. 42, § 3.2, ¶ 1) (Answer
20).
The Examiner further finds that Yao teaches a component that
generates at least one new media object via combining a subset of the media
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013