Ex Parte Goris et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2005

10356079 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2005)

1 The only rejection of claim 7 has been withdrawn (answer at page 5).
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ANDREW C. GORIS, JASON E. YOST, and GREGORY V. HOFER
____________
Appeal No. 2005-1666
Application No. 10/356,079
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, CRAWFORD, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 6
and 8 to 13.1
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2005-1666
Application No. 10/356,079
Page 2
2 The examiner has withdrawn the rejections based on the Seki reference (answer at page 5).
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a camera which computes and indicates a
measure of focus as a function of focal distance (specification, p. 1). A copy of the
claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The Prior Art Reference
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Miyamoto 5,687,409 Nov. 11, 1997
The Rejection
Claims 1 to 6 and 8 to 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Miyamoto.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed February 10, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed October 7, 2004) and reply brief (filed April 11, 2005)
for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2005-1666
Application No. 10/356,079
Page 3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 8 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Miyamoto. We note initially that to support a rejection of a claim under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element of the claim is found, either
expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference. See
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
The examiner is of the opinion that Miyamoto describes each element of claim 1
as detailed on page 3 of the answer.
The appellants argue that Miyamoto does not describe a camera that comprises
a processor which computes a “measure of focus” using the image data at each of a
plurality of focal distances or an indicator that indicates the measure of focus as a
“function of focal distance,” as required by claim 1. In appellants’ view, Miyamoto does
not describe an indication of a “measure of focus” but rather of whether the subject is in
focus or out of focus.
Appeal No. 2005-1666
Application No. 10/356,079
Page 4
The appellants’ specification discloses, as depicted in Fig. 2A, a camera which
indicates a measure of focus (curve 202) as a function of focal distance (200 axis)
(specification at page 4). As such, appellants’ specification discloses that at each of a
plurality of focal distances, there is a measure of focus associated therewith.
Miyamoto describes a camera which measures the focal distance of a subject to
be imaged and moves a lens group based on the focal distance from an "out of focus"
position to an “in focus” position (col. 7, lines 13 to 19 and lines 53 to 56).
The examiner’s position is that whether a subject is in or out of focus is a
measure of focus and that since the determination of whether the subject is "in focus" or
"out of focus" is determined based on focal point distance Miyamoto describes
indicating a measure of focus as a function of focal distance as claimed (answer at page
6).
We agree with the examiner that an indication of whether a subject is in focus or
out of focus is an indication of a measure of focus. However, as Miyamoto indicates
this measure of focus based on only one focal distance, Miyamoto does not describe
“computing a measure of focus, using the image data, at each of the plurality of focal
distances” as required by claim 1. In addition, since the indicator relates to only one
focal distance, it can not be considered indicating a measure of focus as a “function of
focal distance.” As such, we agree with the appellants that an indication of a function of
Appeal No. 2005-1666
Application No. 10/356,079
Page 5
focal distance would involve an indication of the measure of focus (in or out of focus in
the Miyamoto device) for each of several focal distances.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Miyamoto. We will also not sustain
this rejection as it is directed to claims 2 through 6 as these claims are dependent on
claim 1. We will likewise not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 8, and claims
9 through 13 dependent thereon, as claim 8 also recites that the measure of focus is
detected at a plurality of focal distances and that the measure of focus is a function of
focal distance.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 6 and 8 to 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
Appeal No. 2005-1666
Application No. 10/356,079
Page 6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-1666
Application No. 10/356,079
Page 7
Hewlett-Packard Company
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400
MEC/tdl