Ex Parte ZHOU et al - Page 4




             Appeal No. 2003-1934                                                              Page 4                
             Application No. 08/821,320                                                                              


             rejected under  § 103(a) as obvious over Klingler; Gibbon; and U.S. Patent No.                          
             5,613,909 ("Stelovsky").2                                                                               


                                                     OPINION                                                         
                    Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we                
             focus on the point of contention therebetween.  The examiner finds, "Gibbons teaches                    
             the editing of a script text, which goes along with an audio and video portion, so that a               
             certain text portion is not split between two unrelated scenes, and matches a video                     
             scene it is related to."  (Examiner's Answer at 9.)  The appellants argue, "[m]erely                    
             moving the text around on the screen to be displayed when spoken, as is performed in                    
             the references relied upon by the Examiner, is not enough. Rather, it is the editing of the             
             script that changes the audio portion ('an edited script for defining an audio portion') that           
             is to accompany the video portion."  (Reply Br. at 3.)                                                  









                    2Although the examiner's list of prior art, (Examiner's Answer at 3), and statement              
             of the rejection, (id. at 6), mention Stelovsky, the explanation of the rejection refers to             
             "Parks."  (Id. at 8.)  Neither the identity nor the content of the tertiary reference being at          
             issue, however, we leave the inconsistency to the examiner and appellants to resolve.                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007