Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
The Examiner acknowledges that Anderson does not teach embedding
the selected audio object portions into the selected visual object portions
(Answer 25). The Examiner points to Fielder as teaching embedding
selected audio object portions into selected visual object portions (i.e., a
video frame) (see Fielder, col. 14, ll. 43-47). (Answer 25).
Analysis of Issue 3
After carefully reviewing the evidence before us, we find the scope of
the recited visual and audio objects (and associated “portions”) encompasses
an extremely broad range of multimedia information, such as the audio and
video signals taught by Anderson (see Anderson, p. 1, ¶ 5-6). Given the
breadth of the argued limitations, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Anderson and Fielder teaches and/or suggests each claim
limitation argued by Appellants. We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact
and again note that Appellants have argued many limitations found only
within the Specification. We have found supra that Fielder explicitly
teaches “audio information that is assembled with or embedded into video
frames” (see Fielder, col. 14, ll. 45-46, emphasis added). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that Fielder teaches embedding the selected audio object
portions into the selected visual [i.e., video] object portions. Given the
sweeping breadth of Appellants’ supporting Specification, we find the
weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013