Appeal No. 2005-2290
Application No. 09/896,199
considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR §41.67(c)(1)(vii)].
With regard to independent claim 1, it is the examiner’s position that Inagaki
discloses the claimed subject matter but for the limitation “to change a PIP display
characteristic in response to a received audio command and a related gesture from a
user.” Instead, the examiner points out, Inagaki detects and responds to any of the
many sounds or audio indications in the form of a unique voice of a specific speaking
attendee with the same command which moves the camera and highlights the PIP of
the speaking attendee, but response is not dependent on a related gesture from a user.
The examiner turns to Pavlovic for the concept of a system utilizing a
combination of audio commands and a related gesture “from a user as a means of
controlling a graphical object on display which is analysis [analogous?] to where Inagaki
controlled a specific graphical object such as a PIP on a display.” The examiner
referring to page 123 of Pavlovic, in the EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS section, (answer,
page 4).
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use a “received
audio command and a related gesture from a user,” as per Pavlovic, in the system of
Inagaki because of Pavlovic’s own reasoning, viz., “Psychological studies, for example,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007