Appeal No. 1998-1397 Page 9
Application No. 08/482,905
(citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888
(Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Here, the examiner admits, “Westland does not
specifically discloses [sic] the newly added limitations
wherein the portion of the first video scene is a plurality of
sequential video frames of the first video scene as recited in
claims 21 and 29 ....” (Examiner’s Answer at 6.) He further
admits, “the use of several second [sic] of video for
identifying the particular scene is not suggested in
Westland.” (Id. at 10.) For its part, although the
reference’s controller 22 collects an “image pair” of frames
of a video segment from a video source to a magnetic disk,
col. 21, ll. 6-10, the frames are not sequential. To the
contrary, the image pair “includes a digitized snapshot of the
frames, typically the first and last frames of the segment,
which are employed as the label pair for the segment.” Id. at
10-12.
Faced with this difference, the examiner fails to
identify a suggestion in Izeki, in Mita, or anywhere else in
the prior art to modify Westland’s controller to collect video
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007