Appeal 2007-0438
Application 09/905,524
A. Claims 1 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of APA and Smith.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Smith US 6,223,183 B1 Apr. 24, 2001
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (APA), Specification, pages 1-3
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and representative of the
Appellant’s invention. It reads as follows:
1. A computerized method for processing descriptions of audiovisual
content, the method comprising:
evaluating a description of audiovisual content;
determining whether the description is an abstraction; and
if the description is an abstraction,
determining a level of abstraction, wherein the level of
abstraction identifies one of plurality of types of abstraction, and
storing an indicator of the level of abstraction with description
of audiovisual content.
Appellant contends that claims 1 through 22 are not unpatentable over
the combination of APA and Smith.1 Particularly, Appellant contends that
the cited combination does not fairly teach or suggest a computerized
mechanism for evaluating a description of an audio visual content to
determine if it is an abstraction as well as to determine the level and type of
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellant
submitted in the Appeal Brief. Arguments that Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to have been waived. See 37
CFR § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354 F.3d
1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013