Appeal No. 1997-3225
Application No. 08/351,218
analyzing a video sample to determine images which best
represent the unit of speech and saving it is not taught by
either Lee or Lavagetto. Further as addressed above
Terzopoulos is not combinable with Lee or Lavagetto for these
features. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 48 through 57, 63, 64, 65 67, 68 and 79 through 82.
Finally, we turn to claim 69 which contains the
limitations “to determine keyframe images which correspond to
said units of speech . . . wherein each keyframe image is
defined by two images, said two images include a first image
with a first weighting, and a second image with a second
weighting, said weighting amounts defining an amount of
transparency relative to each other.” We find that neither
Lee nor Lavagetto teaches or makes obvious the use of two
images for each unit of speech, where one image is transparent
relative to the other. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 69.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, 83 and 84 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We reverse
the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11 through 37, 41
21
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007