Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
With respect to Spears' claims 11 and 12, the same type of
deficiency discussed above with respect to Spears' showing for
its claims 8-10 also exists and undermines Spears' argument that
claims 11 and 12 should be designated as not corresponding to the
count. First, there is no comparison of Spears' claims 11 and 12
with Holland's claim 22. In addition, even assuming that
Holland's claim 22 does not include the two features of claims 11
and 12 which Spears has discussed, i.e., conversion of motion
picture film image to video and reading substantially more
vertical lines of information from a motion picture film than is
available on an output video signal, counsel's argument that the
inventors are not aware of prior art which teaches or suggests
the limitations of claim 116 is not supported by evidence. What
Mr. Steven Spears and Mr. David Walker actually state is this
(Exhibit 2011, 91 3 and Exhibit 2012, T 3):
3. With respect to the invention defined by claims
11-12 of the above-identified patent, I am unaware of
any printed publication, public use, sale or offer for
sale of such invention prior to the filing date of
April 7, 1995 for the application which resulted in
U.S. Patent No. 5,666,156.
6 Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and thus includes all
features of claim 11.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007