Appeal No. 2002-0769
Application No. 08/822,319
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A method in a data processing system for synchronizing audio data and video data
[and] in a data stream, wherein the video data includes a plurality of frames associated with a
plurality of frames types, the method comprising:
identifying a synchronization process for the data stream using the plurality of frames and
the associated plurality frame types, wherein the synchronization process is identified based on a
speed of the apparatus, within the data processing system, processing the data stream; and
selectively decoding the plurality of frames using the identified synchronization process.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Ware 5,583,652 Dec. 10, 1996
Claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 17 through 19, 22 through 24, 27, 28, 35, 36 and 40 through
53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ware.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 15 and 17) and the answer (paper number
16) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 44 through 53, and reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 5, 12, 13, 17 through 19, 22 through 24, 27, 28, 35, 36 and 40 through 43.
Appellants argue throughout the briefs that Ware discloses (Figure 4) a system clock, an
audio decoder clock and a video decoder clock, and that synchronization is achieved in Ware by
allowing one clock to serve as a master time clock for the complete system. According to
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007