Appeal No. 95-2855
Application 08/075,338
Once synchronization has been achieved, frames of data
continue to be played as shown by the graph of time codes versus
time in Figure 2. Because there is synchronization, and because
there is only one memory enabled by the comparator, the
additional synchronized playback of frames of data indicated by
the graph of Figure 2 would have to come from the same memory
which has already been selected. In other words, once the memory
holding the starting frame of data has been determined,
synchronization thereafter is maintained by selecting the output
of that particular memory as shown in Figure 2.
As we noted above, the question is whether the original
specification conveys that appellant was in possession of the
invention now being claimed at the time the first application was
filed. It is clear from the original specification, for reasons
discussed above, that the original specification expected that
playback of a videotape would continue after synchronization was
obtained. It is clear from the original specification that the
invention picks one of the memories 14-1 to 14-i for playing back
frames of data which are synchronized to the desired playback of
the data recorded on the videotape. Therefore, we agree with
appellant that the original specification does provide support
for the invention now being claimed. Accordingly, we do not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007