Appeal 2007-1414
Application 10/453,559
are seen and the user may access a set of bookmarks which refer the user to
the portions of the moving image where such conditions exist. We find this
teaching to teach the use of categorization of annotations/bookmarks into
sets and display thereof to the user. We find that this automatic generation
teaches the receiving annotations/bookmarks from the system and
associating them with the digital image as claimed. Therefore, we find that
Meron teaches the invention as recited in independent claim 1 for the above
varied reasons.
As advanced by Appellants in the discussion with respect to the
written description, we find the language of display characteristic to be
broad, and not limited by the Specification. Therefore, we find the above
discussion of interpretation to be reasonable and the application of Meron to
be reasonable as discussed above.
Appellants’ main contention in the Brief and Reply Brief is that
Meron does not teach categorizing the annotations since there is only one
category of time taught by Meron (Br. 9-10 and Reply Br. 4-6). We disagree
as discussed above due to the instance where there is one annotation which
is categorized by time or may be categorized due to a specific GI tract
condition(s). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s claim interpretation
extends beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
disclosed invention. (Reply Br. 5). We disagree with Appellants and find
the express language of the claim to be broader than Appellants may have
desired. Here, we find Appellants reliance upon the dictionary definitions at
page 5 of the Reply Brief to be unpersuasive since we find the categorizing
or classifying of annotations with respect to time to meet the express
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013