Appeal No. 2000-1309
Application No. 08/821,938
data in the stream.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method in a data processing system for dynamically synchronizing a data
stream, the method comprising:
receiving the data stream;
parsing the data stream into packets for form a plurality of packets,
wherein the plurality of packets includes audio packets and video packets;
comparing the plurality of packets to a threshold as packets are added to
the plurality of packets; and
selectively decoding of audio packets and video packets based on a result
from the comparison of the plurality of packets to the threshold.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Maturi et al. (Maturi) 5,559,999 Sep. 24, 1996
Rosenau et al. (Rosenau) 5,598,352 Jan. 28, 1997
Glaser et al. (Glaser) 5,793,980 Aug. 11, 1998
(filed Nov. 30, 1994)
Claims 1-20 and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness the examiner offers Glaser in view of Maturi with respect to each of these
claims, and the examiner adds Rosenau for a second rejection of claims 22-25. Claims
21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Rosenau.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007