Interference No. 104,681
Spears v. Holland
claim in a reissue proceeding. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 218
USPQ 385 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Furthermore, even if there is presumption of validity just
as.is the case in an infringement suit, the principle does not.
stand for reading in anything from the specification to save a
claim. There has to be some reasonable basis for the
incorporation other than that the claim would otherwise be
unpatentable or invalid. In section D of its motion, Spears has
not provided an explanation as to why a reasonable interpretation
would lead to such incorporation. There has to be sufficient
room for interpretation to allow for incorporation. It is not a
.matter of just adding features to save a claim. Moreover, as is
recited in Holland's claims 21 and 22, the motion picture film is
not limited only to film recorded in an anamorphic format.
Finally, section D of the preliminary motion of Spears
discusses only claim 3 of Spears. In the context of preliminary
motion 3, no pertinent explanation is provided for Spears' other
claims corresponding to the count.
For the foregoing reasons, Spears has not demonstrated that
U.S. Patent No. 5,353,119 renders Holland's claims unpatentable
but not Spears' own claims.
As for Spears' assertion of obviousness against Holland's
claims 21 and 22, it is dismissed on several grounds.
27 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007