Appeal No. 2005-0686
Application 10/298,968
With full consideration being given to Appellants’ remarks1, we find no basis upon which
to grant Appellants’ request.
Appellants present two arguments in the remarks. Firstly, Appellants argue at pages 1-2
that the “specification clearly recites that the threshold based on the ‘perceived content’ is
different than the threshold based on a ‘category.’” Appellants’ support for this position is that
Appellants’ “specification discloses at least two mechanisms for setting or adjusting a threshold”
and Appellants’ specification uses the word “alternatively” to show that the disclosed
mechanisms differ. These two points we accept as correct. However, Appellants’ argument fails
when arguing that the disclosed mechanisms differ because one “bases the threshold on the
category of video” while the other “bases the threshold on the perceived content of the video.”
Rather, the disclosed mechanisms differ because each in its totality is functionally and
structurally different. For reasons that escape this panel, Appellants have not included any of
these structural differences in the apparatus claims. Instead, Appellants recite the “threshold
memory which receives a threshold” which is a common structure to all the differing
mechanisms.
Appellants’ second argument fails on its face. The argument that the decision2 of this
panel ignores elements of Claim 11 fails given Appellants own discussion of this panel’s
“intended use” analysis in the decision. Clearly the decision does not ignore the limitation if
that limitation is specifically discussed. Perhaps Appellants are attempting to argue that the
decision errs in that it should have given more weight to the intended use limitation. While such
an argument would make more sense, we do not see this specific language in the request before
1 Request for reconsideration at pages 1-3.
2 Mailed June 10, 2005.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007