Appeal No. 2006-1591
Application No. 09/866,394
examiner correctly noted “there is no basis or support in the specification or claim language for
the applicant’s [sic, applicants’] argument.” Thus, we agree with the examiner’s observation
(answer, page 10):
Since the specification of the applicant’s [sic, applicants’]
invention fails to include a definition of “cluster center”, taking the
broadest reasonable interpretation, one of ordinary skill in the art
would interpret an image that is closest to the cluster center to be
an image that is closest to the center, or middle of a cluster of
scenes. Since Wang teaches that the representative frame is a
frame that is halfway between the first and last scenes, Wang
teaches that the representative frame is at the center of the cluster
of frames and is therefore a frame that is closest to the cluster
center.
With respect to appellants’ argument concerning “the most meaningful image,” we agree with
the examiner’s statements (answer, pages 10 and 11):
Second with reference to the representative image being the most
meaningful image in each superhistogram, Wang teaches that the
representative frame can be a frame taken from the longest scene,
since the longest scene is most indicative of the content of the
related scenes, as recited in column 3, lines 59-62. The applicant
argues [sic, applicants argue] that simply selecting one frame from
among the frames of the longest scene, as taught by Wang, does
not teach or disclose the “most meaningful frame in the group”
since the specification of the invention recites with particularity
(by example) what constitutes the “most meaningful frame”, i.e. a
person’s face, an important text, etc. The examiner respectfully
disagrees. In response to applicant’s [sic, applicants’] argument
that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s [sic,
applicants’] invention, it is noted that the features upon which
applicant relies [sic, applicants rely] (i.e., the representative frame
being a person’s face, an important text, etc.) are not recited in the
rejected claim(s) . . . . Although the applicant’s [sic, applicants’]
specification gives examples of some frames that can be
considered the “most meaningful frame” (the specification recites
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007