Appeal 2007-0902
Application 10/077,500
Appellants argue that there is only a single pre-light emission image
and a single flash image (Br. 5). We disagree with Appellants as discussed
above. Appellants maintain that Tanaka does not teach a strobe flashing
throughout the composition of a photograph (Br. 6). We disagree with
Appellants as discussed above. It appears that Appellants’ arguments imply
that there is a circuit which produces a sequence of strobe flashes upon an
actuation of an unclaimed element of the camera. We find arguments to
unclaimed elements to be unpersuasive.
Appellants argue that the number of flashes or pre-light emissions is
irrelevant and the independent claims are concerned with the behavior of the
flash (Reply Br. 2). We disagree with Appellants and find that the express
language of independent claim 1 merely recites that the strobe repeatedly
flashes without limitation on the number or nature of the flash so as to be
continual or in a set sequence.
Appellants argue that Matsui is concerned with pre-flash which occurs
after the composition of the photograph is complete (Br. 6). We disagree
with Appellants due to the non-specific definition of composing a
photograph and lack of any elements in the claim which would limit the
context of the limitation. We find that Examiner’s interpretation to be
reasonable. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that the flash of
Tanaka is long enough for a photographer to evaluate even one live view
image (Reply Br. 2-3). We do not find this argument relevant to the claim as
recited in independent claim 1 since the length of the flash is not recited in
the claim and the evaluation by a photographer is variable and has no
relevance to the camera as recited in independent claim 1. Therefore,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013