Court declines to rule patent was not anticipated.
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of no anticipation is denied.
The technology relates to digital cameras. Ampex argues that its patent is not anticipated because none of the prior art references disclose the automatic generation of a reduced size image for each full size image prior to storing the full and reduced size images in bulk memory. The Court’s claim construction is dispositive because it did not construe any of the claims to require both automatic operation and a specific order of steps. None of the claims recite the two features that are essential to Ampex’s motion. The motion is thus denied.
