Appeal No. 1998-1345
Application 08/362,318
pre-classification (Br9). Appellants argue (Br10) that
Abecassis detects program categories and does not detect words
to be blocked by monitoring a text source of information which
parallels the audio information of the multimedia application
(claim 3) or by speech recognition on the audio information of
the multimedia application (claim 4).
The Examiner responds that "[i]n detecting the program
segments and their corresponding categories, particular words
are being detected because in order to determine the profanity
level for a particular segment, the words within the segment
must first be detected" (EA5).
We agree with Appellants that Abecassis does not perform
the functions of the improvement clauses in claims 3 and 4.
We assume, for the purposes of discussion, that checking the
box for "None" corresponding to the category of "Profanity" in
figure 4 broadly constitutes "words specified by the user";
i.e., the words specified by the user are words that fall into
the category of "Profanity" rather than specified individual
words.
The segments in Abecassis are manually pre-classified by
a human as to the various program categories; that is, a human
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007