Appeal No. 2000-1309
Application No. 08/821,938
data stream including video and audio packets. The examiner cites Maturi as teaching
the parsing of a data stream into video and audio blocks. The examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to provide the parsing operation as taught by
Maturi in the processing system of Glaser [answer, pages 4-7].
With respect to representative claim 1, appellant argues that Glaser does not
teach comparing both video and audio packets to a threshold as claimed. Appellant
also argues that the time stamp comparison of Maturi is completely different from the
claimed comparison of the plurality of packets to a threshold as packets are added to
the plurality of packets as claimed. Appellant notes that comparing data contained
within a packet to a threshold is not suggestive of comparing a plurality of packets to a
threshold value.
The examiner points to Figure 4B of Glaser and Figure 10 of Maturi and states
that the prior art fully suggests and teaches the limitation disclosed and claimed by
appellant [answer, pages 15-18].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 because
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We agree with
appellant that neither the ramp-up determination of Glaser nor the time synchronization
determination of Maturi teaches the claimed step of comparing the plurality of packets
to a threshold as packets are added to the plurality of packets and the step of
selectively decoding audio and video packets based on a result of this comparison.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007