Appeal No. 2005-2230
Application No. 10/120,307
14, filed August 19, 2004) and Reply Brief (filed December 15,
2004) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 21 and 39 and
also the obviousness rejection of claims 24 and 42.
With regard to claims 21 and 39, the only limitation at
issue is the marking of the video/audio signal for later
searching. The examiner contends (Answer, page 4) that Rangan's
statement on page 1402 that "[a]ny part of the bar (i.e., video
rope) can be selected and played back, moved, copied or deleted,"
suggests that the captured audio/video signals are marked such
that they can be searched later to access a selected portion.
The examiner further states (Answer, page 6) that laser disc
storage (which is used by Rangan) "inherently . . . has some type
of marking or index so that data can be directly accessed."
Last, the examiner asserts (Answer, page 7) that Rangan's
creation of a video rope is equivalent to the marking of selected
portions.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007