Appeal No. 2004-0123
Application No. 09/118,922 Page 11
Nor are we persuaded by the examiner's assertion (answer,
pages 11 and 12) that:
The examiner believes that the teaching of
Daum et al., wherein the audio is dominant
and the sub-picture is subservient, can be
applied by one of ordinary skill in the art
to an invention in which the main picture is
dominant and the sub-picture is subservient.
As taught by Daum et al, the audio is dominant
to the video because the skipping of an audio
frame is more noticeable than the skipping of
a video frame (col. 6, lines 1-13). Using the
same line of reasoning, it would have been
obvious to have the main picture dominant and
the sub-picture subservient because the skipping
of a main picture is more noticeable than the
skipping of sub-picture data because a main
picture provides images for the entire video
display, whereas sub-picture data only provides
images for a portion of the video display. The
teaching of Daum et al suggest skipping the
subservient data; therefore, the sub-picture data
is skipped since it is subservient to the main
video data.
Although we agree with the examiner that in a broad sense, the
issue of "dominant" audio and "subservient" video relates to
video and sub-pictures, we find insufficient connection between
Fujita and the teachings of Daum to apply the teachings of Daum
to Fujita. Nor are we persuaded by the examiner's assertion
(answer, page 15) that the motivation to combine Tsukagoshi with
Fujita and Daum is the "teachings of Tsukagoshi et al that show
that subtitle data provides information related to the video
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007