Appeal No. 2002-1960
Application No. 08/821,321
OPINION
With respect to the provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claim 1, 2, 4-6 and 10, Appellants assert
that the rejection should be withdrawn if it is the only
rejection remaining (brief, page 12). We note that such
determination is made by the Examiner who, upon our decision on
this appeal, takes the appropriate action according to MPEP
§ 804.02 (III) & (V) (8th edition, revision 1, Feb. 2003).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, 2, 4-6 and 10 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
is sustained pro forma.
Turning now to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), we note that the Examiner relies on Parks for teaching
the means for defining time codes and a variable rate and on
Chippendale for disclosing marking of overflow or unnecessary
text, which are pointed out by the Examiner as missing in
Klingler (answer, page 9). The Examiner further reasons that
since the references relate to manipulation of video and text
while Parks mentions the benefits of “subtitling” (col. 7, lines
13-15), one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
references (answer, pages 8 & 9).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007