Appeal No. 2005-2559
Application No. 09/911,017
Dimitrova appears to be no more than a conventional magnetic storage medium. See,
e.g., col. 3, ll. 13-22. The discussion between the examiner and appellant with respect
to whether or not reserving a portion of a tape for the visual index (col. 2, ll. 36-42)
reduces the recordable capacity of the tape is essentially irrelevant to what is claimed.
More specific to optical storage media, the examiner relies (Answer at 4), in
particular, on a sentence at column 2, lines 42 through 44 of the reference: “For a file,
the selected area for the visual index may occur anywhere in the file, and may be
reserved by a system automatically or manually selected by a user.” The examiner
relates this teaching to appellant’s specification, which reveals that the optical storage
medium includes an area allocated to store additional information that may be used for
data interchange, which does not reduce the recordable capacity of the medium.
(Answer at 5.) Appellant’s specification (at 10, ll. 9-30) does seem to say that the scene
detection information may be stored on a data portion of DVDs, using existing DVD
format specifications, such that the available storage capacity of the medium is not
reduced.
However, the instant rejection is for anticipation. The examiner has not used
appellant’s teachings in the specification as an admission of prior art, nor supplied a
teaching reference that might show the artisan’s knowledge with respect to use of
various storage portions of optical storage media,1 in a rejection over combined
1 See, e.g., Ralph Labarge, “A Cure For Insomnia And Other Uses Of The DVD-Video
Specification,” Interactivity, pp. 61-63 (Sept. 1998).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007