Appeal No. 2002-1960
Application No. 08/821,321
overflow text for that section being displayed in a
differentiating manner relative to the displayed non-overflow
text for the associated section, and with the extent of the
matching text and overflow text being dependent upon the time
code TCx indicating the start of that section of text, the time
code TCx+1 indicating the start of the succeeding section of
text, and the rate (n) of reading, wherein the amount of
displayed overflow text relative to the displayed non-overflow
text for the associated section of the video sequence is variable
by means of the user varying the reading rate (n).
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Chippendale 4,858,033 Aug. 15, 1989
Klingler et al. (Klingler) 5,404,316 Apr. 4, 1995
Parks 5,781,687 Jul. 14, 1998
(Filed May 27, 1993)
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parks and Klingler in view of Chippendale.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 10 stand provisionally rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 8 of
copending Application No. 08/821,320.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the answer (Paper No. 22, mailed December 4, 2001)
for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal brief (Paper No.
21, filed August 30, 2001) and the reply brief (Paper No. 24,
filed January 29, 2002) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007