Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
2006), and by U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119 (Exhibit 2008)8, is
dismissed. We discuss below the issue of anticipation based on
U.S. Patent No. 4,633,293 (Exhibit 2006), and based on U.S.
Patent No. 5,353,119 (Exhibit 2008).
We have reviewed the portion of U.S. Patent No. 4,633,293
(Exhibit 2006) which, according to Spears, discloses the features
of the preamble and step (a) of Holland's claim 21 and the
preamble and element (a) of Holland's claim 22, i.e., column 1,
lines 7-33. However, we see nothing which describes a method of
converting motion picture film images to at least one output
video signal, including the step of reading substantially more
vertical lines of information from a motion picture film image
than is available on the output video signal. Similarly, we see
nothing which describes a system which converts a motion picture
film to video where the scan lines from the film are greater in
number than the number of scan lines required by the output.
That digital standards conversion equipment existed which
was capable of converting video signals from a first to a second
format does not mean such equipment was a part of the entire
8 On page 7, Spears apparently refers to the teachings of
U.S. Patent Nos. 4,633,293 and 5,353,119 as anticipating the
preamble and step (a) or element (a) of Holland's claims 21 and
22, and those patents have been cited in Appendix I with respect
to all other features of Holland's claims 21 and 22.
22 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007