Appeal No. 1997-2054
Application No. 08/332,555
On pages 6 and 7 of the brief, Appellants argue that San
does not disclose or suggest any method or apparatus for
interactively editing a video program as set forth in
Appellants' claims. On pages 8 and 9, Appellants argue that
San fails to teach a method of using a second processor that
controls the video program editing operation in response to
user input through the input device as required by the method
claims 1 through 23. Appellants further argue on pages 9
through 11 that San does not teach stopping the execution of
the program at a desired display frame to be edited as
required by the independent method claims 1 and 10. On pages
14 through 16 of the brief, Appellants argue that San fails to
disclose a second processor that controls video program
editing operations as required by the apparatus claims, claims
24 through 27, 29 and 30.
Upon our review of San, we fail to find that San teaches
in any way a method or apparatus for editing a video program
as claimed by Appellants. San teaches the use of a second
processor to be used as a graphical coprocessor. We find that
San fails to contemplate in any way the problem of
interactively editing a videographic program being executed in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007