Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assoc.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claims 1 through 5, 7 and 14 through 17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kondo. In the Examiner's answer, the Examiner states in the
new ground of rejection on page 9 that Kondo does not disclose
an image move- ment vector detecting means as recited in
Appellant's claim 1.
The Examiner argues that Kondo expressly suggests that the
image movement vectors can be detected since vectors clearly
including those caused by motion of an image within the image
plane are shown in Figure 2B and since it is recognized that
movement vectors representing both an image and vibration of
the camera are present within the image plane. The Examiner
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007