Appeal 2007-1658
Application 09/838,428
6, 10 through 13, and 17 through 20, which have not been separately
argued.2
Appellants (Br. 23-25) contend that Cruz, added to the primary
combination by the Examiner for rejecting claims 7, 14, and 21, fails to
suggest discarding remaining moving video frames from the first plurality of
moving video frames, as recited in each of claims 7, 14, and 21. The second
issue, therefore, is whether Cruz, in combination with Loui and Bergen,
suggests discarding the remaining video frames.
The Examiner relies (Answer 9) on deselecting the "video" checkbox
in Figure 2 of Cruz as suggesting discarding remaining video. However, the
checkbox operates to determine whether or not video is to be displayed.
Cruz does not address whether remaining video should be discarded after a
single frame has been extracted from the video stream. Since Loui and
Bergen also fail to address this limitation, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 7, 14, and 21.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3 through 8, 10
through 15, and 17 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to
2 We note that Bergen discloses (col. 20, ll. 14-44) a video book in which a
temporal index of a movie can be presented as a series of frames, wherein
each frame represents a scene from the movie. Each scene has a prewritten
description of the contents which can be requested after the frames are
viewed. Thus, Bergen's video book includes extracting frames from a video
with text data associated in time with the video frames. The main difference
between Bergen and claim 1 appears to be that Bergen displays the text after
the user views the still images, not in association with the still images.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013