Appeal No. 1999-1096
Application No. 08/556,746
view of Mankovitz, but further in view of Kano for claim 22,
Yoshimura for claim 23, or Henmi for claims 20 and 35 through 41.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed January 5, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 14, filed October 13, 1998) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 17,
filed January 28, 1999) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 5, 10, 11,
16 through 18, and 20 through 24 and affirm the obviousness
rejection of claims 35 through 41, 48, and 49.
Claim 1 recites a video indexing method including the steps
of "separately storing information representative of a subset of
the images [of a video program being recorded], the image subset
representing segments of the program which are separated in
time," and "displaying images from the subset in separate windows
. . . at least one of the windows displaying a segment including
motion imagery." Claim 17 recites means for accomplishing
essentially the steps of claim 1. Thus, both claims 1 and 17
require storing and displaying in separate windows time separated
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007