Appeal No. 2005-2559
Application No. 09/911,017
OPINION
Dimitrova is directed to a video indexing system whereby a visual index, that may
consist of visual images, audio, or text, is created on a pre-existing or new video tape.
Col. 2, ll. 36-49. The invention may also be applied to storage media such as files or
DVD, to ease access to particular points in the video program. Col. 1, ll. 61-63.
Dimitrova’s detailed embodiment relates in the main to video tape (e.g., Fig. 1). The
reference, however, also makes clear that MPEG files or disks may benefit from the
indexing. E.g., col. 12, l. 65 - col. 13, l. 4. Appellant submits that Dimitrova fails to
show, as recited in instant claim 1, storing the formatted scene candidates on the optical
storage media in a media structure “without reducing the recordable capacity.”
Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference disclosure of each and
every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim. Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221
USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define. In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA 1970). The
independent claims all relate to storage, or at least formatting for storage, on optical
storage media. While Dimitrova describes an optical storage medium (i.e., DVD), the
disclosure relating to details of formatting and storage on video tape would not
necessarily be applicable to a file, or to an optical storage medium.
The examiner seems to suggest that the “tape” described by Dimitrova is some
sort of optical storage medium. On this record, however, the video tape described by
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007