Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
and what the actual results were.
Consequently, all of Hoshino’s conclusory assertions of
improvement, in the motion, do not help to establish
nonobvious- ness in a meaningful way. Our opinion should not
be read as saying that unexpected results are necessary to
show nonobvious- ness. Rather, we simply note that Hoshino’s
motion H2 did not, with respect to the proposed new counts,
assert and present evidence of "unexpected results," an
objective indicia of nonobviousness, which if shown, can help
to demonstrate nonobviousness.
Additionally, it would appear that given the general
recitation of count 1, i.e., that the corrected conversion
coefficient is determined on the basis of the detected amount
of defocus, one with ordinary skill in the art would have
appreciated that some results would be better than others
depending on the precise calculation formula used. And
because count 1 specifically mentions the amount of defocus as
a factor and not the amount of defocus squared, cubed, or
raised to any other higher order, it is more plausible that
given count 1 one would naturally expect better results with
formulas having a first order term of the detected amount of
- 28 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007