Appeal 2007-1406
Application 09/910,970
signals that correspond to commercials during recording or playback
(Abstract, see also col. 1, ll. 6-10).
We find the issue of whether Dettmer discloses “unrecorded data
content” to be dispositive with respect to all claims on appeal.
Regarding each of independent claims 1, 9, 15, 23, and 29, Appellant
points out that the signals evaluated by Dettmer contain only recorded data
content in the form of a program or a commercial (Br. 5-9). Thus, Appellant
contends that Dettmer does not disclose, teach, or suggest identifying a
border between unrecorded data content and recorded data content, as
required by the language of each independent claim (id.).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner apparently reasons that since
the desired program is recorded and the undesired/commercial program
becomes unrecorded in Dettmer, the limitations of “recorded data content
and unrecorded data content” are met (Answer 3). As such, the Examiner
corresponds “undesired” data content to Dettmer’s commercial data content
(Answer 4). Thus, the Examiner concludes that Dettmer meets the
limitations of having a border detection module which detects undesired and
desired materials based on pixel values (id.).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant restates the argument that each frame of
the Dettmer signal has content, i.e., either program data content or
commercial data content (Reply Br. 2).
After carefully considering the evidence before us, we agree with
Appellant’s reasoning as set forth in the Briefs. We find each of independent
claims 1, 9, 15, 23, and 29 expressly recites the limitation “unrecorded data
content.” We construe this term broadly but reasonably in a manner fully
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013