Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
elements 118, 120, 122 and 126,' a plurality of video format
converters are available to convert the processed signal to an
ultimate output video signal. Many converters are available,
including 128, 130, 132, 134, and 138, and at least some of the
ultimate video output signals have fewer vertical lines of
information than the original motion picture image as scanned by
scanner 104. (See column 30, lines 51-54 and column 52, lines 6
21). The foregoing also makes clear that with regard to claim
22's features which are missing a corresponding citation in
Appendix I accompanying Spears' preliminary motion 3, U.S. Patent
No. 5,353,119 does disclose a film to video transfer system
comprising a telecine machine" including an electron beam
deflection system to produce a film scanning beam. Consequently,
Spears has made out a prima facie case that claims 21 and 22 are
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119.
We reject Holland's argument that:
Junior Party seems to merely suggest that the claim is
directed to a standards converter. It is not. It is
directed to a system having all of the limitations of
9 Holland's claims 21 and 22 do not preclude the presence
of additional signal processing circuitry between the first
recorded ' video signal corresponding to the scanned motion picture
film and the components for performing subsequent sample rate
reduction. Party Holland also has not asserted the contrary.
10 Assuming that a telecine machine is a device which
turns film, pictures, or slides into electrical signals.
24 -
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007