Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
sounds, text, e-mail, movies, video, messages, documents,
slides, movie or video stills, streaming video and/or audio,
and/or any combination thereof and/or any cliplet thereof, and
in any suitable format or file type for carrying out the subject
invention [emphasis added].
(Specification 7, ¶ 3).
Thus, we find the scope of the recited media objects encompasses an
extremely broad range of multimedia information, such as the audio and
annotated video media taught by Yao (see Yao, p. 40, § 2, ¶ 1, p. 41, § 3).
Given the sweeping breadth of Appellants’ supporting Specification, we find
the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position. We further
find that Fielder explicitly teaches “audio information that is assembled with
or embedded into video frames” (see Fielder, col. 14, ll. 45-46, emphasis
added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Fielder teaches a component
that embeds a first media object into a second media object. Based upon the
weight and persuasiveness of the arguments and evidence provided by the
Examiner of unpatentability, we adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and
note that Appellants have argued many limitations found only within the
Specification. We note that patentability is based upon the claims. “It is the
claims that measure the invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775
F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Yao and Fielder teaches
and/or suggests each claim limitation argued by Appellants.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013