Appeal No. 1998-1397 Page 10
Application No. 08/482,905
frames that are sequential. Rather than providing a line of
reasoning that explains why such a modification would have
been desirable, he asserts that such a modification would have
been undesirable. Specifically, the examiner asserts,
“selecting more than two
labels for the video scene as claimed has a disadvantage over
Westland because more than two labels for the video scene will
fill the storage 146 faster than two labels for the video
scene as disclosed in Westland.” (Examiner’s Answer at 6.)
Furthermore, his opinion that “it merely an obvious
engineering choice in selecting the labels for the video
scenes because the number of the ‘labels’ for identifying the
particular video scene can be selected by the editor,” (id. at
11), is conclusory and unsupported by facts.
In view of the examiner’s conclusory opinion and his
assertion of undesirability, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would appear to have suggested
the limitations of “transferring only a portion of a first
video scene from the video source device to the storage
device, the portion being a plurality of sequential video
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007