Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with
it.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1743, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Here, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art having
common sense at the time of the invention would have reasonably
considered embedding audio with video in the synchronized manner taught
by Fielder. We note that Fielder’s approach is directed to eliminating audio
aliasing artifacts that may become audible when digital audio/video
information is edited on video frame boundaries (see Fielder, col. 1, ll. 62-
64, col. 2, ll. 46-66, col. 4, ll. 11-28). We note that Anderson teaches using
audio and video in combination for transmission to personal audio/video
devices in an auto racetrack setting (see Anderson, p. 1, ¶¶ 5-6, 13). While
we acknowledge that Anderson does not explicitly teach video editing, we
note that Anderson nevertheless teaches the use of personal audio/video
devices at a broad range of sporting events (such as hockey, basketball, and
football games) where we find the use of video editing (such as instant
replay) is at least suggested (see Anderson, p. 2, ¶ 22). Given the ubiquitous
nature of audio-visual media (as taught by both Anderson and Fielder), we
find the weight of the evidence and recourse to common sense support the
Examiner’s position.
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013