Appeal 2007-1414
Application 10/453,559
limitations of independent claim 1 and taught by Meron. Therefore, we find
that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s initial showing and
we will sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 16 and their
respective dependent claims 2, 5-8, 17, 20-23, 58-63, and 64-69.
With respect to independent claims 53 and 76, Appellants contend
that Meron does not teach receiving a prioritization preference and filtering a
set of annotations (Reply Br. 6). We disagree with Appellants and find that
Meron teaches in paragraph [0034] that an annotation may automatically be
created when such conditions (low motility or for blood in the GI tract) are
seen and the user may access a set of bookmarks which refer the user to the
portions of the moving image where such conditions exist. We find this
teaching to teach the use of categorization of annotations/bookmarks into
sets with display thereof to the user. We find that this automatic generation
teaches the receiving annotations/bookmarks from the system and
associating them with the digital image as claimed. Additionally, we find
that the user’s request for this data would have been a prioritization
preference and the data would have been filtered to present the appropriate
set of data to the user.
Appellants argue that the Examiners’ reliance upon time as a
preference is in error since that is a single mandatory manner of listing the
data (Reply Br. 6-7). We agree with Appellants, but we find that the
Examiner does identify paragraph [0034] in the discussion of independent
claim 1 which identifies that time is not the only manner for user preference
to be used in the display. Therefore, we find our reliance upon those
teachings in our discussion above to be reasonable since the Examiner has
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013