Appeal 2007-0438
Application 09/905,524
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, Appellant’s representative claim 1 requires a
computerized mechanism for evaluating a description of an audiovisual
content to determine if it is an abstraction as well as to determine the level
and type of abstraction. As set forth in the facts section above, APA merely
discloses a general overview of descriptions of audiovisual content.
However, this overview expressly identifies the shortcomings of the prior art
as not having an established mechanism for indicating that a description is
an abstraction, and as not being able to identify the type of abstraction.
Thus, we find that APA cannot be properly relied upon to teach the claimed
limitation when it expressly states that such mechanism is lacking in the
prior art. Further, we find that Smith’s teaching of graphically representing
the relationship between different regions does not cure the deficiencies of
APA. After considering the entire record before us, we find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1 as being unpatentable
over the combination of APA and Smith. We also find for the same reasons
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 through 22 as being
unpatentable over APA and Smith.2
OTHER ISSUES
In any further prosecution of the present application, the Examiner should
consider rejecting claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as not being directed to
2 Our decision to reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejection is based solely
on the lack of evidence on the record before us to substantiate the
Examiner’s contentions. However, our reversal of the rejection should not
be construed as an indication that the claims are patentable. We recommend
that the Examiner consider US Patent No. 6,735,583 as relevant prior art.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013