Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
The above-quoted statement refers to the invention of claims 11
and 12 as a whole and does not indicate whether the inventors are
aware of prior art which discloses conversion of motion picture
film image to video and/or reading substantially more vertical,
lines of information from a motion picture film than is available
on an output video signal, the two features which Spears relies
on in asserting patentable distinction of claims 11 and 12.
For the foregoing reasons, party Spears has not made out a
prima facie case that it is entitled to the relief requested in
its preliminary motion 5, to designate claims 8-12 as not
corresponding to the count.
Accordingly, Spears' preliminary motion 5 is denied.'
C. Spears' Preliminary Motion 3
Paragraph 26(a)(1) of the Standing Order attached to the
Notice Declaring Interference (Paper No. 1) provides that in
presenting a motion a party shall first state the precise relief
requested. The first paragraph of Spears' preliminary motion 3
7 We disagree with Holland's assertion that functional
language in a claim element of an apparatus claim "cannot lend
patentable weight to the claim," but that issue is moot in light
of Spears' failure to show patentable distinction of claims 8-10
despite according weight to all claim features Spears asserts.
We also disagree with Holland's assertion that the recitation
"video camera system" in the preamble of claim 11 should not be
accorded any weight, but that issue is moot in light of Spears'
failure to show patentable distinction of claims 11 and 12
despite according weight to all claim features Spears asserts.
17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007