Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
Issue 1. Whether the combination of Yao and Fielder teaches or
suggests receiving and annotating a plurality of media
objects, generating a new media object, and embedding a
first media object into a second media object.
Issue 2. Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have been motivated to modify Yao
with the teachings of Fielder.
Issue 3. Whether the combination of Anderson and Fielder
teaches or suggests selecting one or more portions of a
visual object and an audio object, adding the selected
portions to a bin component, embedding the selected
audio portions into the selected visual portions, and
generating a new media object via the combined portions.
Issue 4. Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention would have been motivated to modify
Anderson with the teachings of Fielder.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s factual findings are not in
dispute except with respect to the specific claim limitations argued by
Appellants in the Briefs. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants
have been considered in this decision. For Issues 1 and 3, we make the
following findings of fact with respect to the scope and content of the prior
art and the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013