Ex Parte Hwang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 27, 2003

08901409 (B.P.A.I. May. 27, 2003)

1 After submission of the amendment, the examiner withdrew
the indefiniteness rejection of claims 2 through 4 (paper
number 9).
1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte DEOG-WON HWANG

Appeal No. 2002-1910
Application 08/901,409

HEARD: May 8, 2003

Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 10. In an Amendment After Final1 (paper number 8),
claim 1 was amended.
Appeal No. 2002-1910
Application 08/901,409
2
The disclosed invention relates to a video camera, and
to a zooming method for the same. The video camera determines
whether or not a focus lens is in focus while performing an
optical zoom-in operation, and stores zoom lens position
information and focus lens position information only when it is
determined that the focus lens is in focus. If the focus lens
becomes out of focus during the zoom-in operation, the stored
zoom lens position information and focus lens position
information are used to place the lens in focus.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and
it reads as follows:
1. A video camera zooming method comprising the steps
of:
(a) judging whether or not a focus lens is in focus
while performing an optical zoom-in operation;
(b) storing zoom lens position information and focus
lens position information only when it is determined that the
focus lens is in focus in step (a);
(c) continuing to perform the optical zooming
operation only when it is determined in step (a) that the focus
lens is in focus;
(d) performing a focusing operation, using the focus
lens position information and corresponding zoom lens position
information which have been stored in step (b), when the focus
lens is judged to be not in focus in step (a) to obtain a video
signal; and
Appeal No. 2002-1910
Application 08/901,409
3
(e) performing a digital zooming operation with
respect to the video signal obtained in step (d), when it is
judged in step (a) that the focus lens is not in focus.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Okino et al. (Okino) 5,867,217 Feb. 2, 1999
(effective filing date Dec. 29, 1992)
Hirasawa et al. (Hirasawa) 5,933,187 Aug. 3, 1999
(effective filing date May 24, 1994)
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Okino.
Claims 3 and 6 through 10 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Okino in view of
Hirasawa.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper
number 7), the answer (paper number 13), and the briefs (paper
numbers 12 and 14) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner.
OPINION
All of the claims on appeal require storing zoom lens
position information and focus lens position information only
when it is determined that the focus lens is in focus. The
Appeal No. 2002-1910
Application 08/901,409
4
examiner is of the opinion that Okino discloses at column 5,
lines 48 through 55, that “the output of zoom encoder 7 is
clearly stored in microcomputer 20 and that it is clear that
focus lens position information is being stored in a counter
since focus lens position is being detected by counting the
number of pulses of motor 9.” Appellant argues (brief, pages 4
and 7) that Okino neither teaches nor would have suggested
storing zoom lens position information and focus lens position
information only when it is determined that the focus lens is in
focus. According to the appellant (reply brief, page 2),
Okino et al pre-stores the position informa-
tion corresponding to the zoom position and
performs the focusing operation using the
position information corresponding to the
zoom position detected when the lens is in
focus, while the present invention stores
the position information of the zoom lens
and the focus lens when the lens is in focus
and performs the optical zooming operation
and the focusing operation using the zoom
lens position information and the focus lens
position information corresponding to the
focal point just before the lens is out of
focus.

Although Okino has a storage means 17 that stores
information associated with a position where the fourth lens
group 4 is located according to the object distance and the
Appeal No. 2002-1910
Application 08/901,409
5
position of the second lens group 2 (column 4, lines 62
through 65, and column 5, lines 9 through 12), the storage of
the position information is not performed when the focusing lens
is in focus. When an in-focus state is reached, Okino merely
detects the positions of the second and the first lens groups
(column 5, lines 51 through 55). The examiner’s contentions to
the contrary notwithstanding, Okino is completely silent as to
storing any of the detected position information. In fact,
“[p]osition information corresponding to the zoom position and
indicating a position to which the fourth lens group is to be
moved is read out” from the memory 17 in a subsequent step to the
detection step (emphasis added) (column 5, lines 56 through 59).
Thus, the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 is
reversed because Okino is silent as to storing the detected
position information.
The obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 6 through 10
is reversed because the teachings of Hirasawa fail to cure the
noted shortcoming in the teachings of Okino.
Appeal No. 2002-1910
Application 08/901,409
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4
and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed, and the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 3 and 6 through 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:psb
Appeal No. 2002-1910
Application 08/901,409
7
Sughrue Mion Zinn MacPeak & Seas
2100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-3202