Appeal 2007-2021
Application 09/790,726
would only enhance the artist’s ability to present their artistic works in a
creative and compelling fashion.5
For at least these reasons, we conclude that Appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness of
representative claim 23 based on the collective teachings of the cited
references – references which we find are reasonably combinable. We will
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-8 since they fall
with representative claim 23.6 See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
(“SMIL encodes what media items are to be presented, where on the screen
to display them and how the user can navigate through their display, as well
as when to play them.”).
5 We further note that Balabanovic discloses a conversion capability that
suggests generating a file (e.g., an HTML file) that corresponds to the
claimed multimedia file. Specifically, Balabanovic teaches that the contents
of a multimedia chronicle can be transferred and stored on a web server.
When a user receives an email containing an XML URL, the XML
representation is parsed to create and play the message if the user has the
appropriate application to view the XML representation. Alternatively, the
message can be displayed as a standard HTML-based web page or translated
into an SMIL-formatted file (Balabanovic, col. 9, l. 62 – col. 10, l. 25). Such
a conversion capability from one file format to another, as well as the ability
to present multimedia presentations in different file formats, would have
suggested generating a file (e.g., an HTML file) that corresponds to the
multimedia file as claimed.
6 We also find that the collective teachings of the cited prior art amply
suggests the limitations of at least the other independent claims for the
reasons previously discussed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013