Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
a) reading substantially more vertical lines of
information from a motion picture film image than is
available on said output video signal;
b) performing vertical sample rate reduction
operating on a plurality of vertical lines of video to
produce said output video signal with the correct
number of video lines.
We can see no basis for regarding the above-identified claim
recitations as triggering the limiting construction rules of 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and party Spears has offered us
none beyond that the features are steps in a method claim.
Accordingly, we reject party Spears' assertion that the above
quoted recitations are step-plus-function features subject to the
special limiting rules of construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph. It is not necessary to determine and compare
the embodiments described in Spears' specification and disclosure
with those described in Holland's specification and disclosure.
Note further that Spears has not alleged that any word
appearing in claim 3 of Spears has a specially defined definition
according to Spears that is contrary to that as would be
understood by one with ordinary skill in the art, or that any
word appearing in claim 21 of Holland has a specially defined
definition according to Holland that is contrary to that as would
be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007