Ex Parte Post et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 7, 2004

08822319 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 7, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
______________________
Ex parte LAUREN LEE POST, MICHAEL JOSEPH KOVAL
AND DARRYL RAY POLK
______________________
Appeal No. 2002-0769
Application No. 08/822,319
______________________
ON BRIEF
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 17 through 19, 22
through 24, 27, 28, 35, 36 and 40 through 53. Claims 6 through 11, 14 through 16, 29 through
34 and 37 through 39 have been allowed.
The disclosed invention relates to the synchronization of audio data and video data in a
data stream.
-1-
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-
Appeal No. 2002-0769
Application No. 08/822,319
appellants (brief, pages 5 through 14; reply brief, pages 3 through 7), the system disclosed by
Ware does not take into account frame types or number of frames dropped during the process of
identifying a synchronizing speed/process for the audio and video data processed by the audio
decoder and the video decoder as required by claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 17 through 19, 22
through 24, 27, 28, 35, 36 and 40 through 43. We agree with appellants’ argument. Thus, the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 17 through 19, 22 through 24, 27, 28, 35, 36
and 40 through 43 is reversed because Ware does not disclose every limitation found in these
claims. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 516 U.S. 3378 (1995).
The remainder of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 44 through 53) are silent as to frame
information. Instead, these claims rely on speed at which the video data is processed to select a
synchronization process. Ware discloses video speed control, and the use of the video decoder
clock as the master time clock for synchronization purposes (column 5, lines 16 through 32;
column 9, lines 18 through 27). The examiner referenced the same columns in Ware, and noted
that they discussed speed in connection with the determination of a synchronization process
(answer, pages 5 and 6). To date, appellants have not presented any patentability arguments for
these claims. Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of claims 44 through 53 is sustained.
-3-
Appeal No. 2002-0769
Application No. 08/822,319
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 17 through 19, 22
through 24, 27, 28, 35, 36 and 40 through 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed as to claims
44 through 53, and is reversed as to claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 17 through 19, 22 through 24, 27,
28, 35, 36 and 40 through 43.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/dpv
-4-
Appeal No. 2002-0769
Application No. 08/822,319
DUKE W. YEE
CASTENS, YEE & CAHOON, LLP
P.O. BOX 802334
DALLAS, TX 75380
-5-