Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
that deals with "bi-directional defocus" (considering both the
magnitude and sign of the defocus amount). Specifically,
Tanaka stated on page 5 of the opposition: "To the contrary,
Count 1 is broad enough
to encompass apparatuses dealing with uni-directional or bi-
directional defocus." Tanaka further explained that the word
"inherent" as used in Tanaka’s opposition to Hoshino’s motion
to redefine the count was used to indicate what one with
ordinary skill would surely have known to consider in the case
of a camera having a lens that moves in both directions, and
not to suggest that the count necessarily requires bi-
directional defocus.
In any event, even assuming that Tanaka has taken the
view that the count requires both the magnitude and sign of
the defocus amount to be considered in correcting the
conversion coefficient, which Tanaka denies, Hoshino can
merely argue against that interpretation of the count. Until
the APJ or the Board agrees with the view allegedly taken by
Tanaka, the circumstance does not give Hoshino a new
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007