Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

11945611 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/945,611 11/27/2007 Charles G. Miller 0087962-000004 7682
23464 7590 11/17/2017
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
P.O. BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
THAI, XU AN MARIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES G. MILLER and CLIFFORD OLMSTEAD
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, JILL D. HILL, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles G. Miller and Clifford Olmstead (Appellants) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a): (1) claims 1—4, 6—11, 13,1 and 15—20 as unpatentable over Scharf
(US 2004/0204635 Al, published Oct. 14, 2004) and Kurzweil (US
1 Claim 13 is not listed in the heading of this rejection but is discussed in the
body of the rejection. See Non-Final Act. 2, 4 (mailed Oct. 9, 2013). We
consider this a typographical error.
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
2004/0138864 Al, published July 15, 2004)2; (2) claim 123 as unpatentable
over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Reichek (US 5,701,153, issued Dec. 23, 1997);
and (3) claim 14 as unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Kirkpatrick (US
2006/0179403 Al, published Aug. 10, 2006). Claim 5 has been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to methods “for the integrated
recording and playback of video, audio and data inputs using training
simulators, particularly patient simulators in the medical environment.”
Spec. 12, Fig. 1. Claims 1,16, and 18 are independent.
Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and
recite:
1. A method of conducting a session with a training simulator
comprising at least one subject and at least one moderator
comprising the steps of:
Capturing at least one video image of the subject during at
least part of the session with the training simulator from at least
one video camera;
2 The Examiner acknowledges the typographical errors regarding the Scharf
and Kurzweil references in the Answer and notes that the “references cited by
the examiner are correctly indicated in the 892 form which was mailed along
with the office action on 10/13/2013.” See Ans. 7 (mailed Oct. 1, 2014); see
also Appeal Br. 11 (filed May 27, 2014). We note that Appellants refer to the
Scharf reference as “the Caregiver Device Reference” and the Kurzweil
reference as “the Web Based Virtual Patient Simulator Reference.” See
Appeal Br. 11.
3 Claim 13 is also listed in the heading of this rejection but is not discussed
in the body of the rejection. See Non-Final Act. 6. We consider this a
typographical error.
2
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
Capturing at least one audio record of at least a portion of
the session with the training simulator from at least one
microphone;
Capturing data source inputs throughout at least a portion
of the session which correspond to at least one simulated
parameter of the training simulator;
Integrating each of the data source inputs of the training
simulator, each video image and each audio record into a
common log file; and
Contemporaneously flagging the common log file by at
least one moderator during the session through a wireless
controller, wherein each flag is a time sequenced moderator input
into the common log file.
18. A method for the integrated recording and playback of
video, audio and data inputs using training simulators comprising
the step of simultaneously receiving at least one data source
input, at least one audio input and at least one video inputs into
a common digital memory buffer in a time stamped manner for
at least a given training event, wherein at least one of the data
source inputs is a data record throughout the event of at least one
simulated parameter of the training simulator, wherein at least
one audio input is an audio record of the training event and at
least one video input is a video record of the training event, and
wherein the common memory buffer allows independent,
simultaneous, synchronized, user controlled playback of the
individual inputs received within the memory buffer.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Scharf and Kurzweil
Claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 9
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 2—4, 6,
7, and 9 separate from those presented for independent claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 11—19. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2—4, 6,
7, and 9 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 8,
3
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
10, 11, 13, and 15, which depend from claim 1, are addressed separately
below.
Appellants contend that Scharf “fails to teach or suggest a method
of conducting a session with a training simulator with at least one subject
and at least one moderator.” Reply Br. 3, 44; see also Appeal Br. 13.
According to Appellants, Scharf “is a device for caregivers and thus no
‘training session subject’ and no ‘moderator’” are present.” Reply Br. 3;
see also Appeal Br. 13.
As an initial matter, the Examiner correctly points out that “claim 1
doe[s] not recite the limitation of ‘trainee subject’ rather a [‘]subject[’] is
disclosed by the claim language.” Ans. 8—9; see also id. at 7 (“[Cjlaim 1
recites in the preamble ‘ . . . comprising at least one subject. . . . ’ and
[claim 1] does not disclose wherein the subject is the trainee.”). Moreover,
we note that the Specification merely describes a “subject.” See, e.g., Spec.
28, 56, 62, 65; see also Reply Br. 4. Stated differently, there is no
disclosure in the subject application of a “training session subject.” See,
e.g., Spec. 1128, 56, 62, 65. Further, the Specification describes “the
moderator” as a “reviewer” or “instructor.” See id. 116, 18, 20; see also
Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner clarifies in the Answer that “the caregiver in [Scharf]
has been interpreted to be the moderator and the patient as the subject.”
Ans. 7 (citing Scharf, Abstract, 112); see also id. at 8—9. Scharf discloses
that “[conventional monitoring systems are used by caregivers, such as
doctors, nurses, technicians, other health professionals ... to monitor
parameters related to the physiological state of a patient [subject].” See
4 Filed Dec. 1,2014.
4
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
Scharf || 3, 4. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification, the Examiner’s findings concerning the terms
“moderator” and “subject” are reasonable. Appellants do not provide
persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error.5
Appellants further contend that the Examiner fails to provide a
reason with rational underpinnings to combine Scharf and Kurzweil. See
Appeal Br. 12—15; see also Reply Br. 2—5. In particular, Appellants
contend that in Kurzweil, “the user interactions with the virtual simulation
are ALREADY recorded as the associated inputs, and which recorded
inputs drive the simulation,” that the “system” of Scharf “fails to include
the training simulator and thus there is no teaching or suggestion of the ‘a
method of conducting a session with a training simulator’ in [Scharf]” that
there is “no teaching or suggestion of video recording of the trainee subject
[in Scharf] ‘during at least part of the session with the training simulator’ as
set forth in the present claimed method” and that the combined teachings of
Scharf and Kurzweil fail to disclose the step of “capturing at least one
audio record of at least a portion of the session with the training simulator
5 In the Reply Brief, Appellants state that “[a] key aspect of the claimed
method of training of the present claimed invention is the ability of the
moderator to effectively observe and comment on the trainee subject (who is
distinct from the moderator) and his performance in the training session with
the training simulator.” Reply Br. 3. As discussed above, claim 1 does not
recite a “trainee” subject nor does claim 1 recite anything regarding the
moderator effectively observing and commenting on the trainee subject and
his performance in the training session with the training simulator. See id.;
see also Appeal Br. 22, Claims App.; In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982) (Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability).
5
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
from at least one microphone as claimed.” See Reply Br. 2—5; see also
Appeal Br. 12—15.
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive because they are not
responsive to the Examiner’s proposed rejection of the combined teachings
of Scharf and Kurzweil. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (holding that nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of references). In this case, the Examiner finds that Scharf
discloses the method of claim 1 “substantially as claimed” except for
utilizing “the technology in [a] medical simulation field.” See Ans. 7; see
also Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that “[t]he system of
Scharf is capable of carrying out the method steps as disclosed by claim 1. .
. in a training environment.” See Ans. 7. The Examiner relies on Kurzweil
for disclosing a “patient simulation system.” Non-Final Act. 3; see also
Ans. 7—8. In particular, the Examiner finds that Kurzweil “discloses a
patient simulator for training and educational purposes which records data
source input of a simulated event and also integrates the simulated
parameter into a common log file such that the videos dynamically get
adjusted to display the changes corresponding to the input parameter.”
Ans. 8; see also id. at 7; Non-Final Act. 3.
Kurzweil discloses that “in one embodiment, the applications 120a-
120r/ provide users with a simulation of a patient medical exam (i.e.,
simulation of a medical exam to ‘virtual’ patient). . . . The medical
simulation applications 120a-120r/ continually update the state data 112 for
a patient to reflect the virtual patient’s health.” Kurzweil 133, Fig. 1; see
also Non-Final Act. 3. Kurzweil discloses that “[t]he simulator provides an
6
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
interactive, multimedia simulation of a medical examination” and that
[t]he simulator provides extensive medical education and
reference information such as pharmacological references (e.g.,
PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference) notes), videos and images
illustrating proper use of products and procedures, medical
dictionary entries (e.g., from Gray’s Anatomy), and links to
medical information on the Internet.
Kurzweil 48-49; see also Ans. 8. Kurzweil further discloses that
[i]n some embodiments, the simulator operates by
interpreting data structures encoding different virtual patient
characteristics. For example, a developer can code data structures
that define the progression of different medical conditions.
Procedures interpret the data structures to present a virtual
patient. Interpretation of the data structures can include
accessing and modifying virtual patient state data.
Kurzweil 170; see also Non-Final Act. 3. Kurzweil also discloses that
As shown, the simulator 1700 also provides multimedia
files 1716 such as video (e.g., MPEG (Motion Pictures Experts
Group)) files, sound files, and picture (e.g., JPEG (Joint
Photographers Experts Group)) files. These files may include
instructional references material and/or multimedia features used
to present the virtual patient. The state data 1718 can include
references or copies of the multimedia files that reflect the
current state of the patient (see FIGS. 15a and 15£)[.]
Kurzweil 179, Fig. 17; see also Ans. 8.
Given that the Examiner points out that “no structure” has been
recited for the claimed “training simulator” (see Ans. 7), we understand the
Examiner to be interpreting the computer implemented simulation
applications/procedures of Kurzweil to constitute the claimed “training
simulator.” See Non-Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 7—8. We further
understand the Examiner’s proposed modifications of Scharf in view of
Kurzweil to include replacing the “real” patient/subject of Scharf with the
7
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
“virtual” patient/subject of Kurzweil and modifying “the patient
physiological data gathering and capturing teachings” of Scharf to include
the simulation/annotation file systems of Kurzweil in order to enhance a
user’s/medical student’s “learning experience [/training outcome] by
providing trainees an opportunity to interact and/or solve a real life
situation in [a] virtual world by minimizing the risks (e.g. in medical
industry).” See Non-Final 3; see also Ans. 8.6
The Examiner’s findings are sound and supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, and the Examiner’s conclusions therefrom
are based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do not provide persuasive
evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error.
Appellants contend that the “training” method of Scharf and
Kurzweil “lacks the teaching of a moderator and more importantly of the
step[] of ‘Contemporaneously flagging the common log file by at least one
moderator during the session through a wireless controller, wherein each
flag is a time sequenced moderator input into the common log file’ as
claimed.” Reply Br. 5; see also Appeal Br. 15.
Scharf discloses that
Before, during, or after the sensor transmits 315 signals to
the PDA, a caregiver determines 333 he or she wishes to
document certain observations, diagnoses or any other
information related to the physiological condition of the subject.
In order to do so, the caregiver, or user, turns the audio memo
system on 335, such as by pressing a button or switch that is
preferably built into the PDA. The digitized voice data from the
6 Kurzweil discloses that “[t]he simulation enables users to experiment
with different patient treatments and quickly witness the impact of their
recommendations on the virtual patient.” Kurzweil 150; see also Ans.
8.
8
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
audio memo system is also tagged 340 with the date and time of
generation of the voice data and subsequently stored 345 in the
form of digital audio files for future reference and display/access
350. The tagged physiological and corresponding audio event
data is obtained for a specific period of time continuously or
intermittently as required by the user. Synchronization of sensor
data with observational data is realized since the physiological
data recorded by the sensing module is time-stamped by the same
real-time clock that time-stamps the event data. The tagged data
so obtained is finally displayed to the user through a plurality of
GUI configurations.
Scharf 150 (emphasis added); see also id. H 31, 34, 56, 57; Non-Final Act.
3.
Based on the foregoing, we agree with the Examiner that Scharf
discloses the step of “[contemporaneously flagging the common log file by
at least one moderator [i.e., user] during the session through a wireless
controller, wherein each flag is a time sequenced moderator input into the
common log file,” as claimed. See Non-Final Act. 3. Appellants do not
apprise us of Examiner error.
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over
Scharf and Kurzweil. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil. We further sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—4, 6, 7, and 9, which fall with claim 1.
Claim 8
Appellants contend that the combined teachings of Scharf and
Kurzweil fail to disclose the step of “automatically synching the each
wireless video camera to the central controller when the wireless video
camera is within range of the central controller,” as recited in claim 8. See
Appeal Br. 15—16; see also Reply Br. 5—6.
9
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
In the Answer, the Examiner states that
[Scharf] discloses wherein the sensor modules (e.g. camcorder)
may be implemented as detached unit[s] and that they can
interface and communicate with any general purpose
microprocessor based computing device through wireless
transmission such as radio frequency transmission (e.g. it is
understood that the wireless communication among devices
occurs when they are within certain range of one another).
Ans. 9 (citing Scharf |34).
The Examiner further notes that “the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the word ‘syncing’ in wireless technology is that the
content of the synced devices become the same” and refers Appellants to
paragraph 46 of Scharf “where it discloses wherein the content of audio
sensor (element 110, figure 1- or alternatively a video recorder) are
communicated to a PDA for further analysis.” Ans. 9. Appellants do not
apprise us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as
unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites, “[t]he method . . . according to claim 1 [,] wherein
the common log file allows independent, simultaneous, synchronized, user
controlled playback of the individual inputs received within the common
log file.” Appeal Br. 23, Claims App.
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 55 and 61 of Scharf for the
recited limitation. See Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 9. In this case, we
agree with Appellants that neither paragraph 55 nor paragraph 61 of Scharf
discloses that “the common log file allows independent, simultaneous,
synchronized, user controlled playback of the individual inputs received
10
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
within the common log file,” as required by claim 10. See Appeal Br. 16;
see also Reply Br. 6—7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10
as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil.
Claim 11
Appellants contend that “[tjhere is no teaching or suggestion in
[Scharf] of ‘a polygraph of the subject and further includes the step of
capturing data source inputs throughout at least a portion of the session
which correspond to at least one parameter of the polygraph, ’ as claimed.”
See Appeal Br. 16—17; see also Reply Br. 7—8.
The Examiner relies on paragraph 30 of Scharf for this limitation. See
Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 9.
Scharf discloses that
[t]he physiological sensing module 105 comprises a sensor
to monitor the physiological condition of a subject. The sensor
may be one of various types used in health and medical fields
such as EKG monitors, exercise monitors such as pedometers,
heart rate monitors, body temperature monitors, spirometers,
electronic heart sound monitors, blood oxygenation and
perfusion monitors, blood glucose monitors or any other suitable
invasive or non-invasive physiological characteristic sensing
system known to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
Scharf 130 (emphasis added). Scharf additionally discloses “interfacing
with a plurality of physiological sensors ... for capturing clinical
observations to provide a common platform for suitably manipulating
data.” See id. at Abstract, || 8, 27.
In this case, the Examiner correctly notes that a polygraph “is a
system which monitors several physiological parameters such as pulse,
li
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
blood pressure, respiration, etc.” See Ans. 9.7 The Examiner states that
paragraph 30 of Scharf “discloses several sensor elements including heart
rate monitor, EKG, etc.” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to substitute and/or add as many sensor modules as
one desires depending on the application of Scharf s system in order to
accommodate the users.” Id.
The Examiner’s findings are sound and supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, and the Examiner’s conclusions therefrom
are based on rational underpinnings. Appellants do not provide persuasive
evidence or argument apprising us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as
unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites, “[t]he method . . . according to claim 1 [,] wherein
the session includes at least two moderators each having an independent
flagging controller, and wherein the common log file is configured to
differentiate the flagging controllers.” Appeal Br. 24, Claims App.
The Examiner relies on paragraph 35 of Scharf for the recited
limitation. See Non-Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 10. Paragraph 35 of Scharf
discusses having “a unique identification (sensor ID)” for each sensor
module but discusses nothing regarding the session including “at least two
moderators each having an independent flagging controller, and wherein
7 An ordinary and customary meaning of the term “polygraph” is “an
instrument for simultaneously recording variations of several different
[physiological] pulsations (as of the pulse, blood pressure, and respiration).”
5edittps://www.merri am-webster.com/dictionary/polygraph (last visited
Nov. 10, 2017)
12
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
the common log file is configured to differentiate the flagging controllers,”
as claimed. See Scharf |35.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13
as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil.
Claim 15
Appellants contend that Scharf discloses “identification is OF THE
PATIENT not a trainee subject or even the caregiver.” Reply Br. 8; see
also Appeal Br. 17.
As an initial matter, claim 15 recites “the step of using an
Identification Card to input the identity of at least one subject or
moderator.” Appeal Br. 24, Claims App. (emphasis added). Further, the
Examiner correctly points out that claim 15 recites “‘the identity of at least
one subject’ and not a trainee subject as argued by [Appellants].” Ans. 10.
As discussed above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
“patient” constitutes the “subject” of the claimed invention. See Ans. 7—10.
We further agree with the Examiner that Scharf discloses using an
identification card to input the identity of at least one subject (i.e., “a
patient ID”). See Ans. 10; see also Scharf 135.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 as
unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil.
Claim 16
Appellants do not offer arguments in favor of independent claim 16
separate from those presented for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 18
(“Claim 16 defines over the applied prior art for the reasons discussed . . .
in connection with claim 1.”). As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments
13
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
regarding claim 1 are not persuasive.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1, we
likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over
Scharf and Kurzweil.
Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 16. Appellants present the same
arguments regarding “moderator based flagging” as for claim 1. Appeal
Br. 18. As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above for claims 1 and
16, we likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as
unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil.
Claims 18—20
Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18. Similar to dependent claim
10, independent claim 18 requires that “the common memory buffer allows
independent, simultaneous, synchronized, user controlled playback of the
individual inputs received within the memory buffer.” Appeal Br. 25—26,
Claims App.
The Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings for claim 18
as those discussed above for claim 10 (i.e., paragraphs 55 and 61 of
Scharf). See Non-Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 9. Thus, the Examiner’s
findings with respect to Scharf are deficient for claim 18 as well.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18—
20 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil.
14
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
Obviousness over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Reichek
Claim 12
Appellant contends “[t]he examiner has merely found a stenographic
related reference to throw at the method of training of claim 12, and
nothing related to a training simulator as claimed.” Reply Br. 8; see also
Appeal Br. 20. Appellants further contend that the “nonanalogous
nature” of the prior art combined teachings “remains an unanswered.” See
Reply Br. 8. However, Appellants fail to apprise us how the prior art
combined teachings are “nonanalogous.” See id.
In this case, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Scharf,
Kurzweil, and Reichek to reject claim 12. See Non-Final Act. 6.
Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. Further, in the Answer, the
Examiner notes that Reicheck “integrates a stenographer output with video
recording in a time coded manner such that the stroke data of the
stenographer can be determined with a corresponding position on the video
tape recording.” Ans. 10 (citing Reichek 7:65—9:25). Appellants do not
apprise us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 as
unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Reichek.
Obviousness over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Kirkpatrick
Claim 14
Appellants contend that “[t]he fact that editing is known does not
make the limitations of claim 14 obvious.” Appeal Br. 21; see also Reply
Br. 9. Appellants further contend that “[t]he examiner does not seem to
address the editing limitation [i]n detail.” Reply Br. 9. However, claim 14
merely requires “the step of editing the log file after the session.” See
15
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
Appeal Br. 24, Claims App. Stated differently, the “editing” step is not
further defined in the claim. See id.', In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348.
In this case, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Scharf,
Kurzweil, and Kirkpatrick to reject claim 14. See Non-Final Act. 7. In
particular, the Examiner finds that
it would have been obvious to modify the log file comprising
gathered audio, video, and correlated data information using
timestamps as set forth by Scharf [and Kurzweil] with the
timestamp audio, video, and correlated information editing
methodology as set forth by Kirkpatrick to enable temporal
synchronization and editing of multimedia and gathered, time
related information within a composite document (log file) using
temporal correlation.
Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Scharf || 6—9, 12—15; Kirkpatrick || 6, 11—13, 58—
67, 86). Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 as
unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Kirkpatrick.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—4, 6—9,
11, and 15—17 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil.
We REVERSE the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 10, 13,
and 18—20 as unpatentable over Scharf and Kurzweil.
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 12 as
unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Reichek.
We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 14 as
unpatentable over Scharf, Kurzweil, and Kirkpatrick.
16
Appeal 2015-002106
Application 11/945,611
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17