Appeal No. 1998-1323
Application 08/252,861
closed captioned text and then forms a further association
between the closed captioned text and the video corresponding
thereto. Thus, Cragun ends up storing specific closed
captioned text along with corresponding video. Claim 25 does
not exclude the user as the source of the correspondence
information. We agree with the examiner that claim 25 is
broad enough to read on the disclosure of Cragun. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claim 25 as anticipated by Cragun.
We note that there are certain similarities between
the invention of claim 25 and the invention of claim 1. We
have reversed the rejection of claim 1 because it is based on
Takahashi while we have affirmed the rejection of claim 25
based on Cragun. As noted above, we do not view Cragun as
actually applied against claim 1. We leave it to the examiner
to determine whether Cragun and/or any other prior art
suggests the obviousness of any of claims 1-24.
In conclusion, we have sustained the examiner’s
rejection of claim 25, but we have not sustained the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-25 is affirmed-in-
part.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007