Appeal No. 2006-2208
Application No. 10/782,265
Upon a review of IBM-TDB and considering the arguments
presented, we find ourselves convinced by Appellant that the
claim indeed requires the word selected from the closed caption
text, for which a list of related content is retrieved, be made
to flash. Contrary to the Examiner’s position, the flashing of
the words in the closed caption text of IBM-TDB is merely based
on the type of emotion associated with how that word is spoken
and not on whether the word is selected by a user for receiving
information thereabout. As the Examiner has failed to set forth
a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 10 and 14-16 over Thomsen and IBM-TDB cannot be
sustained.
With respect to the rejection of the remaining claims, we
note that the Examiner further relies on other prior art
references for the additional features recited in the dependent
claims. However, the Examiner has not pointed to any convincing
rationale in modifying the combination of Wasilewski, Isoe and
Brodsky or the combination of Thomsen and IBM-TDB with the
teachings of these references that would have overcome the
deficiencies of the applied prior art as discussed above with
respect to claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3, 4, 7 and 9 over
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007