Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
or element (a) in claim 22 which reads:
a telecine machine including:
i) an electron beam deflection system to produce a
film scanning beam, and
ii) a detection system adapted to convert the film
scanning beam to a digitized signal representing each
film frame which has been scanned, said digitized
signal representing a plurality of scan lines
corresponding to each said film frame wherein the
number of said scan lines is greater than the number of
scan lines required by an output device; (emphasis
added)
Thus, the body portion of Spears' preliminary motion does
not clarify the picture. Rather, it adds to the appearance that
Spears improperly relies on a combination of references to make
out a charge of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We turn to Appendix I attached to the preliminary motion to
see if it might help to clarify the situation. Paragraph 26(d)
of the Standing Order requires that where anticipation (35 U.S.C.
§ 102) is the basis for a preliminary motion for judgment, each
claim alleged to have been anticipated shall be reproduced and
following each element or step recited in the claim there shall
be inserted "in bold a specific citation to the column and line
and/or drawing figure and numeral and/or other material where a
prior art reference describes each element or step recited in the
claim." In other words, the source of prior art is supposed to
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007