Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
"[a] reply shall be directed only to new points raised in the
opposition." To the extent that Hoshino believes that Motion
H2 itself makes out a prima facie basis for relief, we
disagree.
In order to add a count to the interference, party
Hoshino must demonstrate that the newly proposed count defines
a separately patentable invention relative to original count
1. According to count 1, the "corrected conversion
coefficient" representing a relationship between the lens
driving amount and the detected amount of defocus is
determined on the basis of three factors:
(1) the conversion coefficient, (2) the
correction coefficient, and (3) the detected amount
of defocus.
Hoshino’s proposed count 2 differs from count 1 by
specifically and particularly reciting that the corrected
conversion coefficient is determined in accordance with a
formula that depends on both the magnitude and sign of the
detected amount of defocus.
Hoshino’s proposed count 3 differs from count 1 by
specifically and particularly reciting that the formula for
- 20 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007