Ex Parte Kristjansson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 12, 2010

10346705 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 12, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte TRAUSTI THOR KRISTJANSSON
________________

Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705
Technology Center 2400
________________

Decided: April 12, 2010
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON,
and JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 to 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will not sustain the enablement and indefiniteness rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 112, we will sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 3
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

2
and 5 to 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and reverse the obviousness rejection
of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method, program, and
system for synchronizing and displaying multimedia (Abs.; Spec. 1-4).
Appellant discloses that the invention is particularly helpful for presenting,
displaying and associating sign language with written language (Spec. 2, 4).
Appellant claims a method for presenting multimedia that associates
segments of media (i.e., targets) with nodes (i.e., hubs) such that (i) a node
associated with one or more segments forms a “hub-target structure,” and
(ii) the hub-target structure can be presented simultaneously (claims 1, 8 ,18-
20). Appellant also claims a method of presenting a graphical user interface
(GUI) on a display including (i) displaying nodes, (ii) providing cursor
control for a user to select and disassociate segments, (iii) and allow a user
to create, select, and delete nodes (claim 5; Spec. 14-17).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and reads as
follows:1
1. A method of synchronizing and presenting a plurality of media on
a terminal, comprising:
(a) providing a plurality of media,
(b) providing a repository for said plurality of media,
(c) providing a terminal which is able to present said plurality of
media,
(d) providing a plurality of segments within said plurality of media,

1 We note that claim 1 on appeal contains a typographical error in that it is
missing a step identified as step (f).
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

3
(e) providing a plurality of nodes operable to associate one or more
segments in the plurality of media, each segment in the plurality of media
operable to be associated with more than one node in the plurality of nodes,
a node with associated one or more segments forming a hub-target structure
in which segments linked to a common node are capable of being presented
simultaneously,
(g) providing a repository controller operable to send simultaneously
said segments related by said nodes to said terminal, said terminal further
operable to present said segments simultaneously.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
deCarmo US 5,574,905 Nov. 12, 1996
Abbott US 2004/0064831 A1 Apr. 1, 2004
(effectively filed Mar. 31, 1997)
Kim US 2004/0125124 A1 July 1, 2004
(filed Feb. 18, 2003)

(i) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
(ii) The Examiner also rejected claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
(iii) The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 13, 15, and 19 to 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Abbott and Kim.
(iv) The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 16 to 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Abbott and deCarmo.

ISSUES
First Issue: § 112, First Paragraph, Enablement Rejection
Appellant contends that the originally submitted Specification (Spec.
4, 14-16) enables the limitation found in claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20 of a node
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

4
associated with one or more segments forming a hub-target structure in
which segments linked to a common node are capable of being presented
simultaneously (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-3). Appellant cites Figures 4,
4A, 4B, 5 to 7, and 9, and pages 14 to 16 of the Specification as enabling the
hub-target structure (App. Br. 10-11), and pages 15 to 16 of the
Specification and claim 1 as originally filed as enabling simultaneous
presentation (Reply Br. 2-3).
The Examiner contends (Ans. 3) that Appellant has not pointed to a
portion in the Specification that supports the limitation “‘a node with
associated one or more segments forming a hub-target structure in which
segments linked to a common node are capable of being presented
simultaneously’” in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make
and/or use the invention. The Examiner admits (Ans. 22) that the
Specification “describe[s] the hub-target structure and how the structure can
be linked together,” and asserts that pages 15 to 16 of the Specification
“never mention how the segments linked to a common node are being
presented simultaneously” and never mentions anything about being
“‘capable’” of presenting segments simultaneously (Ans. 22-23).
Accordingly, the first issue is whether the limitation “a node with
associated one or more segments forming a hub-target structure in which
segments linked to a common node are capable of being presented
simultaneously” described in the Specification in such a way as to enable
one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention without undue
experimentation?

Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

5
Second Issue: § 112, Second Paragraph, Rejection
Appellant contends (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 4) that “hub-target
structure” is the “association or links of segments (targets) in one or more
media and a node (hub)” (App. Br. 13) and is thoroughly described in the
Specification. Appellant also contends (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4) that the
phrase “‘capable’” does not render the claims indefinite, and pages 15 to 16
of the Specification describes how the segments are capable of being
presented simultaneously.
The Examiner (Ans. 4, 23-24) contends that the terms “hub-target
structure” and “capable” render claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20 indefinite. The
Examiner insists (Ans. 23-24) that the phrase “‘capable’” in claims 1, 8, and
18 to 20 “renders the claim[s] indefinite because it is unclear whether the
limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention” (Ans.
24).
Accordingly, the second issue is whether the limitations “hub-target
structure” and “‘capable’” render the claims indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant
regards as the invention?
Third Issue: Obviousness Rejection Applying Abbott and Kim
Appellant contends that no combination of the teachings of Abbott,
Kim, and/or deCarmo discloses, teaches, or suggests the “hub-target
structure” formed of a node and the segments linked to the node, as set forth
in claims 1 to 21 on appeal (App. Br. 14-19). Appellant also contends (App.
Br. 19) that deCarmo fails to teach adding, deleting, or creating a node as
recited in claims 14, 16, and 18 because deCarmo’s nodes are different than
the claimed nodes.
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

6
The Examiner contends (Ans. 4-28) that the obviousness rejections
are proper because (i) Abbott teaches a hub-target structure, (ii) Kim teaches
that a segment can be associated with more than one node, and (iii) and
deCarmo teaches adding/deleting nodes as recited in claims 14, 16, and 18.
Accordingly, the third issue is whether Abbott and Kim, taken singly
or in combination, disclose or suggest the recited invention including a
“hub-target structure,” as set forth in claims 1 to 13, 15, and 19 to 21 on
appeal?
Fourth Issue: Obviousness Rejection Applying Abbott and deCarmo
The fourth issue is whether Abbott and deCarmo, taken singly or in
combination, disclose or suggest the recited invention including a “hub-
target structure” and method that allows a user to create, add, or delete one
or more nodes, as set forth in claims 14, 16, and 18 on appeal?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant describes and claims a method (Figs. 5-8), system (Fig.
1A, 1B), and program storage device for synchronizing and presenting
multimedia on a terminal 110 (see Spec. 1, 4; Abs.). As shown in Figure 2,
“targets” can be a portion of text such as a word or sentence, and “hubs” or
nodes can link targets together. Figure 4 shows hubs 434 as part of a display
in a window presented on the terminal 110. Appellant describes the
invention as follows:
The present invention provides a method for associating
segments within multiple sources of audio/video media and
text. The association method allows the grouping of multiple
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

7
segments reflecting a conceptual unit. The grouping is
supported by using nodes called hubs that link to segments.
The invention provides a system that can be used to
navigated the media and to play the media in a synchronized
fashion. The system also provides the user with an interface for
defining the segments within the various media and for
assigning the links between. When defining the boundaries of
segments the user is assisted by means of segmentation
indicators. The segmentation indicators are provided by
automatic media analysis methods.
(Spec. 6).
2. Appellant’s Specification (Spec. 4) states, in pertinent part
(emphasis added):
The present invention includes a new method for linking
sub regions or segments within various computer based media
such as XHTML (Extensible HyperText Markup developed by
the W3C), video and audio. The new method allows for
navigating between the various media, as well as a
synchronization mechanism, by which, a plurality of media
can be presented in a unified manner. The underlying linking
method is based on defining segments in the media, herein
called targets, and defining nodes, herein called hubs, and then
defining associations between the targets and the hubs. The
various media in conjunction with the description of the links
between these media, comprise a new type of multimedia
document.
(Spec. 4 (emphasis added)).
3. Appellant describes the operation of the invention as shown in
Figures 5 and 6 as follows:
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

8
. . . A flowchart of the operation of the Timekeeper Media Unit
is shown in Fig 5.
The MediaUnit searches for the hub or hubs that link to
the target. A list of all targets to which the hubs link is
compiled. This list contains media identifier and target
identifier pair. The list is sent to the Control and
Synchronization Unit.
The Control and Synchronization Unit then sends the list
to all other Media Presentation units. A flowchart of the
operation of the Control and Synchronization unit is shown in
Fig 6.
On receiving such a list form the Control and
Synchronization Unit, each Presentation Unit positions its
media to display or play the appropriate targets. If the media
unit is a text presentation unit, then it highlight the specified
target text segments and scrolls them into view. If the media
unit is an audio/video unit then it plays the specified
audio/video segments. A flowchart of the operation of the
Control and Synchronization unit is shown in Fig 6.
The effect of the playing of audio/video media is that text
segments in the eXHTML presentation window will be
highlighted when an associated video target is encountered, and
de-highlighted when the video target is no longer active, i.e.[,]
when the position of the timekeeper is no longer within the
boundaries of the video target.
There are two ways to play temporal media (e.g.[,] video
or audio media) in the subservient media units. The first method
is to play it at its natural rate, and start the playing at the same
point in time as when the target is encountered in the
timekeeper. A second method is possible if both the originating
target and destination targets are temporal media. In this case,
the temporal media can be played at a rate such that it will
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

9
finish playing at the same instant as the play position in the
timekeeper passes the end boundary of the active segment.
(Spec. 15-16 (emphases added)).
4. Abbott describes a system (Figs. 6, 11, and 12) and method (Figs. 7
and 10) of synchronizing and presenting multimedia on a terminal (Abs.; ¶¶
[0041]-[0043], [0048], [0050]-[0052], [0064]-[0066], and [0080]). Abbott
describes a set-top computer 1112 and a work station 1202 for allowing a
user to enter commands to control the presentation of multimedia (Figs. 11,
12; ¶¶ [0137]-[0145]) by creating atom index files and selecting index
boundaries (¶¶ [0130]-[0133]). As shown in Figure 4, segments 108A and
108V are associated with atoms 104CV and 104CA. Each segment 108 may
be associated with one or more atoms 104A, 104V, 104CA, and 104CV (¶
[0065]). Each atom 104V, for example, may be associated with one or more
segments 108A1-13 (see Fig. 4). Segment 108 may identify an entire atom
104 or a portion of an atom 104 (¶¶ [0050], [0052]).
5. Abbott’s method includes providing one or more linked segments
“for sequential delivery” (¶¶ [0055], [0058]). As shown in Fig. 2, a
sequence of segments 108 are provided in sequential order, and a series
208V of segments 108v1, 108V2, 108V3 are provided in correct sequential
order (¶ [0058]). The list of segments making up the series is assigned a
unique identifier and then “it is stored” (¶ [0055]). One or more segments
108 may be linked together in a series 30 in sequential order for delivery or
storage (¶ [0055). A group is formed by joining series in parallel for
“simultaneous delivery” of the corresponding data (¶ [0056]). Atoms, and
their unique identifiers, may also be stored on a storage device, or other
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

10
suitable memory means such as on a disk or server, memory 608, or
secondary memory 610 (¶¶ [0048]; Fig. 6).
6. Kim describes a system and method for synchronizing and
presenting multimedia including providing a plurality of nodes (labeled 1-
15, 21, 31, 32, and 41-45), where each node may be associated with one or
more segments (separate bar segments 920, 930, 940, and 950) (¶¶ [0154],
[0155]; see Fig. 9, e.g., where node 45 is associated with segments 930, 940,
and 950), and each segment may be associated with one or more nodes (see
Fig. 9, e.g., where segment 950 is associated with nodes 12, 43, 45, and 21).
7. Kim also describes presentation of a visual rhythm 850 and a
synchronized audio waveform 860 which are “juxtaposed and displayed in
parallel” on GUI screen image 840 of a GUI screen (Figs. 8A and 8B; ¶
[0141]). The visual rhythm 850 and the audio waveform 860 are displayed
along the same timeline to help users visualize the multimedia content
quickly, locate the start and end time positions of a video segment, and allow
the user to more easily adjust video segment boundaries (¶ [0141]). The
GUI presents the multimedia to a user for selection (¶ [0135]).
8. deCarmo describes a multimedia editing system and method for
arranging multimedia file segments in a file to be edited (Abs.). A linked-
list editing structure is arranged as a plurality of nodes, and the nodes
correspond to the file segments (Abs.; col. 3, ll. 13-22). During the editing
process, “nodes are created and added” and “information is inserted or
deleted” (col. 3, ll. 23-31).

Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

11
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Enablement
“[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those
skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention
without “‘undue experimentation.’” In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561
(Fed. Cir. 1993). Some experimentation, even a considerable amount, is not
“undue” if, e.g., it is merely routine, or if the specification provides a
reasonable amount of guidance as to the direction in which the
experimentation should proceed. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
Indefiniteness
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is
claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics,
Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citations omitted). Claims must “particularly point[] out and distinctly
claim[] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
Obviousness
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The
Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellant must, on appeal to the Board,
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

12
demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position or rejection. See
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86.

ANALYSIS
First Issue: § 112, First Paragraph, Enablement Rejection
In determining whether the Specification as filed enables claims 1, 8,
and 18 to 20, and whether “undue experimentation” would have been
required by one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the claimed
invention, the Examiner failed to support the conclusion of non-enablement
with any evidence (see Ans. 3). Furthermore, the Examiner’s conclusion of
non-enablement is based on a general reference to the Specification in its
entirety, and not on any specific evidence. See Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 740
(requiring conclusion of non-enablement to be based on evidence as a
whole); see also MPEP § 2164.01(a). The Examiner also failed to explain
why one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Appellant’s detailed
description and viewing Appellant’s drawings, would have needed to
experiment unduly in order to make and/or use Appellant’s claimed
invention.
We agree with Appellant that the originally submitted Specification
(Spec. 4, 14-16; Figs. 4, 4A, 4B, 5 to 7, and 9) enables the limitation found
in claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20 of a node associated with one or more segments
forming a hub-target structure in which segments linked to a common node
are capable of being presented simultaneously (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br.2-
3).
Page 15 of the Specification states that “[a] list of all targets to which
the hubs link is compiled” and then sent to the Control and Synchronization
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

13
Unit and then the Media Presentation Units as shown in Figure 6. After the
list of targets (i.e., media segments) is received, each Media Presentation
Unit “positions its media to display or play the appropriate targets” (Spec.
15). Because the list of segments or targets is being stored in the computer
system of Figure 1A, it is capable of being presented simultaneously.
Based on the originally filed disclosure, one skilled in the art could
make and/or use the “node with associated one or more segments forming a
hub-target structure in which segments linked to a common node are capable
of being presented simultaneously” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20.
The Examiner even admits that the Specification “describe[s] the hub-target
structure and how the structure can be linked together” (Ans. 22). The
broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Specification, of the
phrase “‘capable of being presented simultaneously’” encompasses either (i)
the simultaneous presentation of segments linked to a common node, or (ii)
merely the “capability” of presenting the segments (i.e., segments stored in a
memory and ready for display). Because the Specification supports at least
the second option, that segments linked to a common node be stored in a
computer system, ready for simultaneous presentation, the Specification
supports and enables the disputed limitation of a node with associated one or
more segments forming a hub-target structure in which segments linked to a
common node are capable of being presented simultaneously. Accordingly,
we find that the limitation “a node with associated one or more segments
forming a hub-target structure in which segments linked to a common node
are capable of being presented simultaneously” is described in the
Specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or
use the invention without undue experimentation.
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

14
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Examiner erred in
determining that claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20 are not enabled by the
Specification. Accordingly, we will not sustain the enablement rejection of
claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20 under § 112, first paragraph.
Second Issue:§ 112, Second Paragraph, Rejection
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 4) that “hub-target
structure” is the “association or links of segments (targets) in one or more
media and a node (hub)” (App. Br. 13) and is thoroughly described in the
Specification are persuasive. Appellant’s Specification clearly describes that
targets are media segments and nodes are hubs, the targets being connected
to the hubs by links, thus establishing a hub-target structure (FF 1, 2; Spec.
4). The Examiner notably does not dispute Appellant’s contentions in this
regard (see Ans. 23-24). Because we find Appellant’s Specification enables
the phrase “hub-target structure” as discussed supra with respect to the
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection, and for the foregoing reasons, we also find
that claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20 particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the Appellant regards as the invention. See 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 2.
Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4) that the phrase
“capable” does not render the claims indefinite is also persuasive. Claim
breadth does not equate to indefiniteness in the facts of this case, since one
of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a method and system that is
capable of presenting segments linked to a common node is claimed and
described in the Specification. As long as media segments linked to a
common node are stored in a computer or device, they are capable of being
presented simultaneously. Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4,
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

15
23-24) that the terms “hub-target structure” and “‘capable’” render claims 1,
8, and 18 to 20 indefinite. The Examiner insists (Ans. 23-24) that the phrase
“capable” in claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20 “renders the claim[s] indefinite
because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part
of the claimed invention” (Ans. 24).
The limitations “hub-target structure” and “‘capable’” are not
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which Appellant regards as the invention, and “those skilled in the art
would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc., 806 F.2d at 1576. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 8, and 18 to
20 under § 112, second paragraph.
Third Issue: Obviousness Rejection Applying Abbott and Kim
Claims 1 to 3, 5 to 13, 15, and 19 to 21
Turning now to the obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5 to 13, 15,
and 19 to 21 over Abbott and Kim, we agree with the majority of the
Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions of obviousness (Ans. 4-19, 24-
27)2, and adopt them as our own, along with some amplification of the
Examiner’s explanation of the teachings of Abbott (see FF 4, 5) and Kim
(see FF 6, 7). See Fine, 837 F.2d at 1073; Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. We will

2 Although the Examiner states (Ans. 6) that Abbott fails to disclose that
each segment is associated with more than one node, we find that Abbott
does indeed suggest this feature, at least in Figure 4, which shows for
example, an atom 104V associated with more than one segment 108A1-13
(FF 4).

Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

16
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 to 13, 15, and 19 to 21 for the
reasons that follow.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4-19, 24-27) that the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5 to 13, 15, and 19 to 21 is proper because (i)
Abbott teaches a hub-target structure, and (ii) Kim teaches that a segment
can be associated with more than one node.
Both Abbott’s and Appellant’s inventions relate to the
synchronization and presentation of multimedia to a user via a terminal or
display (FF 1, 4). Abbott’s description of atoms 104 (FF 4) is encompassed
by Appellant’s nodes or hubs 434 as set forth in claims 1 to 3, 5 to 13, 15,
and 19 to 21 and described in the Specification (FF 1, 2). And, Abbott’s
segments 108 are the same as Appellant’s targets or segments (compare FF
1 with FF 4). Both Abbott and Appellant link the nodes and segments
together with identifiers for each (compare FF 3 with FF 5). Accordingly,
we find that Abbott’s segments and atoms meet Appellant’s claimed
limitation of “hub-target structure,” at least to the extent this limitation is set
forth in the claims and described in the Specification.
Kim’s description of a multimedia system and method where each
segment may be associated with one or more nodes (FF 6; Fig. 9, e.g., where
segment 950 is associated with nodes 12, 43, 45, and 21) meets Appellant’s
claim limitation of “each segment in the plurality of media operable to be
associated with more than one node in the plurality of nodes.” Accordingly,
Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 16) that “Kim does not disclose or suggest a
hub-target structure in which a node forms a hub to the one or more
segments” (i.e., each of Kim’s nodes are not linked to plural associated
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

17
segments) is unpersuasive in light of our findings with respect to Kim (FF
6), as well as Abbott (see FF 4 discussed supra note 4).
Appellant’s contention (App. Br. 14-19) that no combination of the
teachings of Abbott and Kim discloses, teaches, or suggests the “hub-target
structure” formed of a node and with segments linked to the node is
unpersuasive in light of our findings with respect to Abbott and Kim (FF 4-
7).
As discussed supra, with respect to the first and second paragraph
rejections under § 112, we find that a proper construction of claims 1 to 3, 5
to 13, 15, and 19 to 21 requires the presence of only the “capability” to
simultaneously present linked segments. Because we find that Abbott
provides and stores linked segments in a sequential order, stores atoms or
nodes, and forms groups of segments for “simultaneous delivery” (FF 5), the
computer system of Abbott’s Figure 6 is operable to, or capable of,
simultaneously presenting information such as atoms and linked segments to
a user by reading it out from memory 608 or 610.
In view of the foregoing and Findings of Fact 4 to 7, Abbott and Kim
describe all of the elements of claims 1 to 3, 5 to 13, 15, and 19 to 21
including a hub-target structure and the capability of presenting linked
segments to a user simultaneously.
The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support the combination for the legal conclusion of
obviousness (Ans. 4-19). See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. Specifically, we agree
with the Examiner (Ans. 6) that the motivation to combine Abbott and Kim
would be to provide a multimedia system for better identifying boundaries
within a video stream or segment by adding the dimension of time. We also
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

18
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to modify Abbott
with Kim in order “to break a video stream down into smaller units at
boundaries that make sense in the context of the content of the video stream
in the hierarchical structure by linking sub-segments” and “to reduce the
missing shot between video frames or segments” (Ans. 25-26).
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 15) that there is no reason why
a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the hierarchical structure
of Kim with Abbott is unconvincing.
Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 18) as to claims 5 to 7, that Abbott
and Kim do not disclose or suggest a GUI or a cursor element, are
unpersuasive in light of our findings as to Abbott (FF 4) and Kim (FF 7)
(Ans. 5-13, 27). Specifically, both Abbott (FF 4) and Kim (FF 7) disclose or
suggest a GUI for presenting data to a user. Abbott’s set-top computer 1112
and work station 1202 for allowing a user to enter commands to control the
presentation of multimedia would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art to include a cursor and a GUI or display for use in creating atom
index files and selecting index boundaries (see FF 4). We do not find it
unreasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention would have known to use any/all of input/output devices common
to computer systems (e.g., cursor, mouse, display or GUI) in order to select
atoms and/or segments for presentation to a user.
In view of the foregoing, we find that Abbott and Kim, taken in
combination, disclose or suggest the recited invention including a “hub-
target structure” and the “capability” of simultaneously presenting segments
linked to a common node, as set forth in claims 1 to 3, 5 to 13, 15, and 19 to
21 on appeal. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

19
claims as being obvious under § 103(a) over the combined teachings of
Abbott and Kim.
Claim 4
Appellant’s argument as to claim 4 (App. Br. 17-18), that Kim fails to
disclose an active segment in a timekeeper media, is persuasive in light of
our findings with respect to Abbott and Kim (FF 4-7). Although Abbott
does teach using an offset and sync control as determined by the Examiner
(Ans. 26), we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9) that Abbott fails to teach the
limitation of claim 4 of reading a timekeeper media using an active segment
in the timekeeper media.
The Examiner’s reliance upon Kim as teaching this missing feature
(Ans. 9), is not well founded since Kim does not disclose or suggest a
repository controller operable to read a timekeeper media when an active
segment in the timekeeper media is read, as set forth in claim 4. Although
Figures 8A and 8B of Kim show a timeline for a visual rhythm, we agree
with Appellant (App. Br. 17-18) that Kim does not disclose an active
segment in a timekeeper media being selected from a plurality of media
being read. Appellant is also correct that Abbott and Kim do not disclose or
suggest using the active segment of the timekeeper media to “produce a
subset of nodes that are linked to said active segment and, [] produce a
subset of segments that are linked to said subset of nodes” and then present
the media and the subset of segments to a user (claim 4).
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 4 under § 103(a) as being obvious in view of the teachings of Abbott
and Kim, and we will not sustain this rejection.

Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

20
Fourth Issue: Obviousness Rejection Applying Abbott and deCarmo
Turning now to the obviousness rejection of claim 14 and 16 to 18
over Abbott and deCarmo, we agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact
and conclusions of obviousness (Ans. 19-22, 27-28), and adopt them as our
own, along with some amplification of the Examiner’s explanation of the
teachings of Abbott (see FF 4, 5) and deCarmo (see FF 8). See Fine, 837
F.2d at 1073; Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. We will sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 14 and 16 to 18 for the reasons provided supra with
respect to Abbott’s hub-target structure and capability of simultaneous
presentation, and for the reasons that follow.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 19, 27-28), and find that deCarmo
describes a multimedia editing process where “nodes are created and added”
(FF 8; col. 3, ll. 23-31). Accordingly, Appellant’ contention (App. Br. 19)
that deCarmo fails to teach adding, deleting, or creating a node as recited in
claims 14, 16, and 18 is unpersuasive. Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 19)
that deCarmo’s nodes are different than the claimed nodes is unconvincing
inasmuch as the claims merely call for “nodes” and deCarmo describes
“nodes” as well as the concept of adding/deleted nodes.
Abbott and deCarmo, in combination, disclose or suggest the recited
invention including a “hub-target structure” and a method that allows a user
to create, add, or delete one or more nodes, as set forth in claims 14 and 16
to 18 on appeal. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner rejection of
these claims as being obvious under § 103(a) over the combined teachings of
Abbott and deCarmo.

Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

21
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 8, and 18 to 20 (i) under § 112, first paragraph, as being non-
enabled, and (ii) under § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. We
also find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 under § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of the teachings of Abbott and Kim. Lastly, we find that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting (i) claims 1 to 3, 5 to 13, 15, and 19 to 21
under § 103(a) as being obvious in view of the teachings of Abbott and Kim,
and (ii) claims 14 and 16 to 18 under § 103(a) as being obvious in view of
the respective teachings of Abbott and deCarmo.

ORDER
We reverse the Examiner’s enablement rejection of claims 1, 8, and
18 to 20 under § 112, first paragraph.
We reverse the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 1 8, and
18 to 20 under § 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 3, and
5 to 21 under § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 4 under
§ 103(a).

Appeal 2009-005766
Application 10/346,705

22
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

KIS

SCULLY SCOTT MURPHY & PRESSER, PC
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530