Ex Parte Dimitrova et al - Page 3

               Appeal 2007-0926                                                                             
               Application 09/818,303                                                                       

                      ascertaining if the query needs to be recast and prompting for user                   
               input if the query needs to be recast; and                                                   
                      determining by the software an answer to the query.                                   
                      28.  A video query processing system, comprising video query                          
               processing software dynamically linked to video content and configured to                    
               receive a query keyed to a segment of the video content and configured with                  
               means for ascertaining if the query needs to be recast prompting for                         
               user input if the query needs to be recast and to determine an answer to the                 
               query.                                                                                       
                      The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on                  
               appeal is:                                                                                   

               Reimer    US 6,553,221  Sep. 3, 1996                                                         
               Menard    US 6,061,056  May 9, 2000                                                          
               Wang     US 6,766,320 B1  Jul. 20, 2004                                                      
                                                                  (filed Aug. 24, 2000)                     

               Rejections:                                                                                  
                      Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-25, 27-29, 31-38, 40-52, and 54-59 stand                         
               rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for being anticipated by Reimer.                           
                      Claims 3, 12, 30, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for                  
               being obvious over Reimer in view of Wang.                                                   
                      Claims 26 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being                    
               obvious over Reimer in view of Menard.                                                       
                      Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we                    
               make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.                    
               Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in                     
               this decision.  Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not                     


                                                     3                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013