Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
subject matter of Spears' claims B-10. It is a long way from a
representation that the inventors are not aware of prior art
which, if combined with the subject matter of Holland's claims 21
or 22, would lead to the subject matter of Spears' claims 8-10.
It is also a long way from a representation that the inventors
are not aware of prior art which discloses one or two of the two
features (a) and (b) of Spears' claim 8 specifically discussed in
the preliminary motion as providing the basis of patentable
distinction for Spears' claims B-10:
a) a telecine machine including scan generator means
operable to produce a film scanning beam and a
detection system operable to convert film modulated
light from said film scanning beam to a digitiz'ed
signal representing a plurality of non forward
sequential scanned lines corresponding to film frame
information wherein the number of said scanned lines is
greater than the number of scan lines available to an
output device;
b) temporary storage means coupled to said detection
system operable to provide a video signal representing
sequentially ordered video;
Note also that party Spears has not compared its claims 8-10
with claim 22 of Holland. Spears has the burden to show that its
claims 8-10 do not define the same patentable invention as any
claim of Holland whose correspondence to the count Spears does
not dispute. That means an analysis has to be made with respect
to each claim of Holland whose correspondence to the count Spears
does not dispute. Proof of "not any" necessarily cannot be
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007