Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
objects based at least in part upon the metadata associated therewith. The
Examiner notes that Yao’s segmented frames are combined to form a shot,
shots are combined to form scenes, and scenes are combined to form videos
based on metadata including activity of objects, depicted events, actions of
objects and sequences (see Yao, p. 40, § 2, ¶¶ 3, 4). The Examiner further
points out that Yao’s shots, scenes and videos are new media objects that are
created from subsets of media objects based on the metadata of those objects
(Answer 20).
The Examiner acknowledges that Yao does not teach a component
that embeds a first media object into a second media object, even though the
Examiner finds Yao teaches a first media object as an audio object (see Yao,
p. 40, § 2, ¶1), and a second media object as a video segment (see Yao, p.
39, § 1.1, ¶ 2) (Answer 20). The Examiner points to Fielder as teaching
embedding an audio object (i.e., a first media object) into a video object (i.e.,
a second media object) (see Fielder, col. 14, ll. 43-47). (Answer 20).
Analysis of Issue 1
We begin our analysis by construing the recited “media objects” by
applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“during examination proceedings, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”).
When we look to the Specification for context, we find Appellants broadly
disclose “media objects,” as follows:
In addition, the term “media object” as employed in this
application is intended to refer to pictures, photographs, music,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013