Appeal No. 2002-1960
Application No. 08/821,321
Appellants argue that Chippendale, instead of marking
overflow text, inserts a sequence of dots in a script to indicate
that a narration pause is required (brief, page 7). Appellants
further points out that Chippendale’s vertical lines that are
manually drawn on the written text, mark a transcript of an audio
recording and are unrelated to associating text with a video
sequence in an editing system (id.). Additionally, Appellants
argue that the changes disclosed by Parks are not changes in the
reading speeds as the reading speeds in Parks are fixed (brief,
page 8). Appellants further question the reason or motivation
that the Examiner applied in combining Klingler, Parks and
Chippendale by asserting that the user in Parks is not involved
in the subtitle superimposition process while Chippendale relates
only to manual marking of a script (brief, pages 9 & 10).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that in the method provided by Chippendale “a user would have
been able to manually mark the unnecessary/overflow words” to
edit mistakes made in narration of a videotaped or filmed portion
(answer, page 13). The Examiner further reasons that since
Klingler teaches a computerized system for editing of video and
text, the advantages of using a computer would have motivated one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine marking of overflow
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007