Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
the claim, including the vertical sample rate reduction
step operating on a plurality of vertical lines as
required by the claim.
Spears' motion-has not simply relied on the video format
converters of U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119, but the combination of
the converters on the back end and the scanner and VTR on the
front end as discussed above. Holland provides no explanation
that is meaningful in light of the presentation made by Spears,
on why Holland believes U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119, does not
disclose vertical sample rate reduction operating on a plurality
of vertical lines of video to produce a correct number of lines.
For the foregoing reasons, Spears' preliminary motion 3 is
grante , to the extent that it asserts that Holland's claims 21
and 22 are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119 (Exhibit
2008) under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and denied insofar as it asserts
that Holland's cl-aims 21 and 22 are anticipated by U.S. Patent
No. 4,633,293 (Exhibit 2006) under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We need not consider the merits of Spears' explanation that
the prior art applied by Spears against Holland's claims are not
applicable against Spears' own claims corresponding to the count,
because Spears has not alleged a date of invention prior to
senior party Holland's effective filing date. Party Spears is
not entitled to any of its claims corresponding to the count.
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007