Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
19. U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119 issued to Dorricott et al.
(Exhibit 2008) discloses in connection with its Figure 66 not
simply a digital video format converter but an assembly including
(1) a scanner 104 for reading a motion picture film 100, (2) a
VTR 108 for recording the scanned motion picture film as a
produced video signal, and (3) a plurality of converters which
act on the produced video signal after it has been further
processed by various combinations of post production elements
118, 120, 122 and 126. The converters are elements 128, 130,
132, 136 and 138. (Column 51, line 37 to column 52, line 21).
20. U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119 issued to Dorricott et al.
(Exhibit 2008) discloses the coupling of digital video format
converters to the back end of a signal detection system which
scans a motion picture film to produce a first video signal. See
Figure 66.
Discussion
A. Spears' Preliminary Motion 4
Patentable distinctness between the parties' claims, in
either direction, is sufficient to demonstrate no interference
in-fact. See Winter v. Fujita, 53 USPQ 1234, 1243 (Bd. Pat. App.
& Int. 2000). As the moving party, Spears has the burden of
proof to demonstrate either (1) that none of its claims
corresponding to the count would have been anticipated by or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007