Appeal No. 2006-2208
Application No. 10/782,265
Accordingly, based on the weight of the evidence and the
arguments presented by the Examiner and Appellant, we are
constrained to reverse the Examiner’s decision and not sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 over the
combination of Wasilewski, Isoe and Brodsky.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 10, we
note the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim as merely
requiring that at least one word from the closed captioning text
be made to flash within the closed captioning text and that word
be selectable (answer, page 25). Apparently, the Examiner takes
the position that the particular flashing of the word has nothing
to do with the existence of supplemental content since the claim
requires that some words flash and be selected (id.).
Appellant argues that the flashing of the word as disclosed
by IBM-TDB is based on emotion and has nothing to do with a
selected word or retrieving a list of content related to the
selected word (brief, page 11). Appellant further asserts that
claim 10 does require that the content received from a source
include closed caption text from which a word is selected by a
user using a remote control and being made to flash (reply brief,
page 3).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007