Appeal No. 2001-2688
Application No. 08/735,619
Appellants argue in the brief and reply brief that the art fails
to disclose teaching or suggesting the step because it has no
suggestion of video segments having at least two classifications
nor any suggestion of a geometric object having at least two
dimensions where in the first dimension, video segments are
arranged in accordance with the classification and in the second
dimension, video segments are arranged according to second
classification. See page 9 of the brief and page 5 of the reply
brief.
Just as we have found for claim 24, we fail to find that the
claims are directed to a database having a particular logical
coordinate but instead, are simply directed to representing video
data as a geometric object having a first dimension and a second
dimension in accordance to a classification. As we have pointed
out above, Clanton does teach displaying video data of the
particular icons on the wall board in a classical two-
dimensional setting first based upon the category type of movies
and their top 10 in that category. Therefore, we will sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 28 through 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Clanton in view of
Grossman and Williams.
1616
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007