Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
assembly at the time an original motion picture film was being
processed into video in a first format such that the resulting
signal in the second format can reasonably be regarded as the
output of the process applied to the motion picture film. Party
Spears has provided no meaningful explanation as to how the cited
portion of U.S. Patent No. 4,633,293 satisfies step (a) or
element (a) of Holland's claims 21 and 22.
Accordingly, Spears has not satisfied its burden of proof in
establishing that either Holland's claims 21 or 22 is
unpatentable for anticipation by U.S. Patent No. 4,633,293
(Exhibit 2006) under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119 (Exhibit 2008), however, is
different. Citing to Figure 66 and textual portions of that
prior art patent, Spears makes the statement that the coupling of
a sample rate converter means to a detection system is clearly
shown, and that more vertical lines of information is read from
the motion picture film than is ultimately provided as a video
output signal. Spears' argument is persuasive, at least in the
absence of rebuttal from Holland. In a first stage, a motion
picture image is scanned by scanner 104 and turned into video
signal of a first format and recorded by VTR 108 (Figure 66).
After some post production processing by various combinations of
23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007