Appeal No. 2000-1309
Application No. 08/821,938
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
The examiner indicates how he reads independent claim 21 on the disclosure of
Rosenau [answer, pages 13-15]. Appellant argues that Rosenau does not disclose
comparing a threshold to the audio and video packets themselves, but instead,
Rosenau discloses comparing a system timing threshold with decoding time data which
is contained within a data packet. Appellant argues that the comparison of time stamps
in Rosenau does not meet the recitations of comparing audio and video packets to first
and second thresholds as packets are added to the plurality of packets as claimed
[brief, pages 16-17].
We agree with the position argued by appellant. The time code comparison of
Rosenau is not the same as the claimed comparing of audio and video packets to a first
and second threshold as claimed and halting the parsing of the data stream based on
these comparisons. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 21
as anticipated by the disclosure of Rosenau.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the examiner’s rejections of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007