Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
rejections made by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 5, 12, 16, 17
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Rim. Anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of
performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital 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 has indicated how he has read the invention of
these claims on the disclosure of Rim [answer, page 4].
Appellant argues that Rim does not operate in the manner asserted
by the examiner. Specifically, appellant argues that there is no
teaching or suggestion in Rim for correcting the received PTS/DTS
if there is an error in the PTS/DTS because Rim assumes that the
received PTS/DTS is correct and synchronizes the decoder clock
based on that. Thus appellant argues that with respect to each
of the embodiments disclosed by Rim, Rim teaches comparing a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007