Ex parte Parks

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 1998

08067992 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 1998)

Application for patent filed May 27, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MICHAEL J. PARKS
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1854
Application 08/067,9921
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1854
Application No. 08/067,992
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 12.
The disclosed invention relates to real-time editing of a
program stored on video tape.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method for editing, in real time and in a single pass,
a program stored on a video tape, said method comprising the
steps of:
(a) storing a script in a computer, said script including at
least one edit event represented by a key symbol followed by
timing data and textual rendering instructions following said
timing data;
(b) scanning said script until said key symbol is found and
then
(i) storing said timing data; and
(ii) storing said textual rendering instructions in a
text buffer;
(c) playing said video tape continuously through said
program without pause to produce
(i) a first video signal; and
(ii) a SMPTE timing signal indicating elapsed time;
(d) comparing said elapsed time with said stored timing data
until the elapsed time matches said stored timing data;
(e) converting said textual rendering instructions into a
second video signal; and
(f) combining said first video signal with said second video
signal.
Appeal No. 96-1854
Application No. 08/067,992
As indicated in paper number 15, the reply brief was not2
entered by the examiner.
3
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Beausoleil et al. (Beausoleil) 3,740,723 June 19, 1973
Slade 4,863,384 Sept. 5, 1989
Nomura et al. (Nomura) 5,097,349 Mar. 17, 1992
Ardis et al. (Ardis) 5,172,281 Dec. 15, 1992
Claims 1, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ardis in view of Nomura.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ardis in view of Nomura and Beausoleil.
Claims 6, 7 and 10 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ardis in view of Slade.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ardis in view of Slade and Beausoleil.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the2
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 12 is reversed.
Ardis discloses a video transcript retriever that includes a
video cassette recorder/player for videotaping a deposition, a
video timecode generator/reader, and a control computer with
software for controlling the timecode generator/reader and the
Appeal No. 96-1854
Application No. 08/067,992
4
video cassette recorder/player. A transcript of the deposition
is also maintained in software form in the computer. When a
videotaped deposition is initially processed by the video
transcript retriever, a timecode numerical address or designation
control signal from the timecode generator/reader is recorded
onto the control track 56 (Figure 4A) of the videotape. As seen
in Figure 4A, the timecode numerical address signals 58a through
58e are located at intervals of 1/30 of a second along control
track 56. Once the control track 56 has been recorded on the
videotape, a numerical designation for each segment of the tape
corresponding to the beginning of each deposition question is
transferred from the software controlling the timecode
generator/reader and videocassette recorder/player to the
software containing the deposition transcript and correlated
therewith. As illustrated in Figure 4B, for example, the mark 62
adjacent to the question Q on the software version of the
deposition transcript corresponds to one of the timecode
numerical addresses 58a through 58e on control track 56. In
order to display a specific question and answer on the videotape,
the software version of the deposition transcript is searched for
the key words of the desired question and answer. When the
desired question and answer is located on the software version of
Appeal No. 96-1854
Application No. 08/067,992
5
the deposition transcript, the timecode number corresponding to
the desired question is transferred from the software version of
the deposition transcript to the software controlling the video
cassette recorder/player. The desired portion of the videotaped
deposition is thereafter located and displayed.
The examiner acknowledges (Answer, page 3) that “Ardis et al
fail to show that the transcript data and the video data are
combined,” but states that “[i]t is well known in the art to
combine textual data and video data for displaying on a single
monitor as a simpler alternative to using separate displays, and
Nomura et al show that textual data and video data are combined
for display (figs. 15A-15C, column 3).” The examiner then
concludes (Answer, pages 3 and 4) that “[i]t would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to provide the system of Ardis et al
with means for combining video data and textual transcript data
so that video and textual data can be displayed on the same
monitor, as shown by Nomura et al, thus simplifying the display
and reducing the space needed for the display.”
Appeal No. 96-1854
Application No. 08/067,992
6
Appellant argues that even if it is assumed for the sake of
argument that it would have been obvious to display video and
textual data on the same monitor, “clauses (a), (b), (c), and (e)
are not suggested by the prior art and are not addressed by the
rejection” (Brief, page 13). We agree. As an example, a SMPTE
timing signal indicating elapsed time in step (c) of claim 1 is
never generated in Ardis, so how could Ardis ever perform the
time comparison in step (d). The obviousness rejection of claims
1, 4 and 5 is reversed because Ardis and Nomura neither teach nor
would they have suggested the steps outlined in claim 1.
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3 is reversed
because the teachings of Beausoleil do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the combined teachings of Ardis and Nomura.
In the obviousness rejection of claims 6, 7 and 10 through
12, Slade is cited because of the use of a graphics card in a
video recording/playback environment. Even if we assume for the
sake of argument that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to “provide the video system of Ardis
et al with a graphic card as shown by Blade [sic, Slade] to
permit selected data to be conveniently and easily added to the
video data prior to recording, thereby improving the flexibility
of the system, as required by claims 6-7" (Answer, page 5), the
Appeal No. 96-1854
Application No. 08/067,992
7
combined teachings would still lack the monitoring and editing
according to a SMPTE timing signal to produce a modified video
signal as required by claims 6 and 12 (Brief, pages 16 through
19). The obviousness rejection of claims 6, 7 and 10 through 12
is, therefore, reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 9 is reversed
because the teachings of Beausoleil do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the combined teachings of Ardis and Slade.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1854
Application No. 08/067,992
8
Paul F. Wille
CAHILL, SUTTON & THOMAS
155 Park One
2141 East Highland Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85016