Appeal No. 2002-0769
Application No. 08/822,319
appellants (brief, pages 5 through 14; reply brief, pages 3 through 7), the system disclosed by
Ware does not take into account frame types or number of frames dropped during the process of
identifying a synchronizing speed/process for the audio and video data processed by the audio
decoder and the video decoder as required by claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 17 through 19, 22
through 24, 27, 28, 35, 36 and 40 through 43. We agree with appellants’ argument. Thus, the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 17 through 19, 22 through 24, 27, 28, 35, 36
and 40 through 43 is reversed because Ware does not disclose every limitation found in these
claims. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 516 U.S. 3378 (1995).
The remainder of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 44 through 53) are silent as to frame
information. Instead, these claims rely on speed at which the video data is processed to select a
synchronization process. Ware discloses video speed control, and the use of the video decoder
clock as the master time clock for synchronization purposes (column 5, lines 16 through 32;
column 9, lines 18 through 27). The examiner referenced the same columns in Ware, and noted
that they discussed speed in connection with the determination of a synchronization process
(answer, pages 5 and 6). To date, appellants have not presented any patentability arguments for
these claims. Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of claims 44 through 53 is sustained.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007